A good ole boy at work sent this, and I got a couple of chuckles out of it...



FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: the original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: government-sponsored Dial-a-prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer and easier.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

:toast:

* James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well-regulated Militia, composed of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

* Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

* Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

* George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

* George Washington: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth. A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

* Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ... The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for, concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

Amen
* James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well-regulated Militia, composed of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

* Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

* Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

* George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

* George Washington: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth. A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

* Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ... The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for, concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.


I still don't understand why people DON'T understand this?

It's like they have no clue what the lives of people in other countries around the world face every day, and that it doesn't take much for self-serving greed to show it's ugly head.

Yeah, even my gun-owning friends don't seem to understand that the second amendment is in place not for 'personal protection', but to be a buffer against a corrupt government (who try to take their weapons- as has happened in every corrupt government around the world).

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.[/QUOTE]

Many Americans seem to have forgotten, if they ever knew, that the first battle of the revolution...when the "embattled farmers" stood on Lexington Green in 1775 was about gun control. The British soldiers that marched on Lexington and Concord had been sent on a mission specifically to confiscate privately held weapons and gunpowder. I hope I never have to decide whether or not I am willing to join 130 or so other men willing to stand up with my rifle in my hand and face down the most powerful army in the world (at the time) when they are coming for my guns.

A good ole boy at work sent this, and I got a couple of chuckles out of it...



FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: the original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: government-sponsored Dial-a-prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer and easier.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

:toast::toast:

Every qualified individual should have a CCW.

I still don't understand why people DON'T understand this?

It's like they have no clue what the lives of people in other countries around the world face every day,

Excuse me, but I can't let that pass without comment. What the people of countries such as Japan and the developed countries of Western Europe face every day is far fewer murders committed with firearms. And in spite of their lack of firearms compared to the US, their "oppressive governments" have not subjected them to abuse. In fact, we have been subjected to far more abuse of our basic liberties than they have. Our guns don't seem to protect us from illegal wiretaps and easedropping.

Now it may well be that we have more murders with firearms just because we are basically a more violent people rather than the fact that we have looser gun control, or because of some other reason that you can name, but its just BS to say what horrible lives these people face because they don't have more firearms. My daughter lives in Europe with her husband and kids, and she not only doesn't feel frightened because of tighter gun control, but actually feels safer.

I have family in Europe as well- but their approach to aggressiveness is what we'd call cowardice here.

But, take 'civilized' Europe out of it for now- look at other hotspots in the world and it wouldn't be unarmed monks being beaten to death...

trying to compare japanese culture to american culture is like comparing wasabi peas to porter house steaks.

it's easy for a politician to rant about gun control when they have secret service and personal body guards armed to the teeth protecting their every step.

Excuse me, but I can't let that pass without comment. What the people of countries such as Japan and the developed countries of Western Europe face every day is far fewer murders committed with firearms. And in spite of their lack of firearms compared to the US, their "oppressive governments" have not subjected them to abuse. In fact, we have been subjected to far more abuse of our basic liberties than they have. Our guns don't seem to protect us from illegal wiretaps and easedropping.

Now it may well be that we have more murders with firearms just because we are basically a more violent people rather than the fact that we have looser gun control, or because of some other reason that you can name, but its just BS to say what horrible lives these people face because they don't have more firearms. My daughter lives in Europe with her husband and kids, and she not only doesn't feel frightened because of tighter gun control, but actually feels safer.

:iagree: Bill makes an excellent point as always :toast:

its just BS to say what horrible lives these people face because they don't have more firearms. My daughter lives in Europe with her husband and kids, and she not only doesn't feel frightened because of tighter gun control, but actually feels safer.That is the Canadian perception as well.

[QUOTE=firefyterx;9057]* James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well-regulated Militia, composed of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."QUOTE]

especially with a class III

Excuse me, but I can't let that pass without comment. What the people of countries such as Japan and the developed countries of Western Europe face every day is far fewer murders committed with firearms. And in spite of their lack of firearms compared to the US, their "oppressive governments" have not subjected them to abuse. In fact, we have been subjected to far more abuse of our basic liberties than they have. Our guns don't seem to protect us from illegal wiretaps and easedropping.

Now it may well be that we have more murders with firearms just because we are basically a more violent people rather than the fact that we have looser gun control, or because of some other reason that you can name, but its just BS to say what horrible lives these people face because they don't have more firearms. My daughter lives in Europe with her husband and kids, and she not only doesn't feel frightened because of tighter gun control, but actually feels safer.

Yes, they do have far less murders with guns, because they don't have guns, but ask anyone from England, Italy, and all over "Civilized Europe" what they get held up with now? KNIVES! So, yes, trade off a quick and easy death for a stabbing death.. The crime doesn't disappear with the guns, it just takes a different form! Removing guns from a society will do nothing but lower shootings, and then stabbings and beatings will take the place of the shootings.

The ONLY way to prevent most crimes of violence from happening is to make the punishment for commiting the crime so severe that no one will want to commit the crime in the first place.
Instead, we convict someone for holding up a store, shooting the clerk, & stealing the money to 20 years in prison, which means that they will be released in about 8 years. Oh yeah. Let's not forget that while they are in prison, we feel the need to "rehabilitate" them because they are only commiting these crimes because they are uneducated, unskilled, and unwanted. In that 8 years of hanging out with the worst POS's that society has to offer, we the people pay for their high school & college educations. In the meantime, they learn the best ways to hide, sell, smuggle, or distribute drugs. They also learn the best ways to avoid arrest and how to kill a cop.

Want to see a low crime rate? Just look at many of the "uncivilized" countries. In many a first offense for theft will get your hand cut off. A DUI will get you taken 20 miles into the desert and left naked to find your own way back. Spay paint a little grafitti and you'll get let off with a few lashes from a cane.

Just how fast would you drive in a 55 mph zone if you knew that, if you got caught, your ticket would cost you $400? or your car would be impounded for 6 months?

This country needs to put down the granola, step away from the tree, and open it's eyes. Stop trying to make new laws that only law abiding citizens are going to follow anyway and enforce the laws that we have and make the punishment, yes PUNISHMENT not rehabilitation, so severe that no one will want to commit a crime.

It wasn't all that long ago that if you stole a mans horse, you would be hanged. Today, you can steal his horse, rape his wife & 6 year old daughter, take every dime he has, and end up only serving 3-15 years in criminal college. And that's IF he gets convicted. (O.J. Simpson anyone?)


:rant::pissed:

:iagree:

They need to make the punishments much more strict and clean up the drugs and corruption from prison.. One of my step-cousins just got out of prison and purposely committed another crime so that he could go back to jail.. He said there are drugs and all sorts of things in there that were just as easy to get as on the streets...

It's amazing to me that you can catch 3 redfish over your limit and be charged with a Felony and yet you can kill someone (manslaughter) and it carries about the same jail time/penalty. How in the hell can you justify this? I say lock up the killer for a LONG haul and reduce the sentences on someone trying to get a meal. We've strayed from what our founding fathers intended and have really screwed the whole sentencing for crimes.

Not to mention you can totally screw over thousands of lives such as in the Enron Scandal and they basically walked away unscathed. Yet, if you catch one undersized fish you can serve up to 60 days in jail and pay a $500 fine for ONE fish. Not to mention they can take your truck/boat/poles for a violation, depending on the severity.. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the stiff fines for managing our fisheries but I do think that it's ridiculous to have such stiff penalties for wildlife violations when you can rob millions from innocent people and everything is ok. The sentence should fit the crime and IMHO I don't think they do.

Technically people are legally supposed to spend 80% of their time in Jail according to the newer laws, before they can be released.. I'd like to know if this really happens or is it just talk.. I see lots of famous folks on tv putting people's lives in danger by DUI, speeding, car wrecks and all sorts of drunken acts and spending only an hour in jail, or serving 2-3 days and getting out.. Hell, Patrick Swayze (spelling?) crash landed his plane on a crowded street and banged up some street signs and poles.. He got out of his plane intoxicated, asked some construction workers to lie for him and help dispose of the booze, while he ran off and disappeared for long enough to sober up... When they finally catch up to him, he gets nothing at all, and the construction workers who helped him out got nailed and sentenced for providing false information to a police officer. How in the hell is that supposed to be fair?

Can we keep this on topic- firearms?

Yes, they do have far less murders with guns, because they don't have guns, but ask anyone from England, Italy, and all over "Civilized Europe" what they get held up with now? KNIVES! So, yes, trade off a quick and easy death for a stabbing death.. The crime doesn't disappear with the guns, it just takes a different form! Removing guns from a society will do nothing but lower shootings, and then stabbings and beatings will take the place of the shootings.

Just a week ago an innocent little girl was killed by a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles. She wasn't the target, she was just in the wrong place when gangs were doing their thing. It happens fairly frequently.

How many people do you think would be killed by drive-by knife throwings?

Just a week ago an innocent little girl was killed by a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles. She wasn't the target, she was just in the wrong place when gangs were doing their thing. It happens fairly frequently.

How many people do you think would be killed by drive-by knife throwings?

How many of those guns that gang members owned were owned legally?!! ENFORCE the current laws...

7 year sentence to HARD labor. MAX
Start before daylight, finish after dark.
If we can't "rehabilitate" you in that time, we don't need you wasting our O2.
:BoomSmilie_anim:
Just my .02

Just a week ago an innocent little girl was killed by a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles. She wasn't the target, she was just in the wrong place when gangs were doing their thing. It happens fairly frequently.

How many people do you think would be killed by drive-by knife throwings?

And this was the guns fault? It takes a criminal to pull the trigger.

And this was the guns fault? It takes a criminal to pull the trigger.

You're missing the point. I was responding to

Yes, they do have far less murders with guns, because they don't have guns, but ask anyone from England, Italy, and all over "Civilized Europe" what they get held up with now? KNIVES! So, yes, trade off a quick and easy death for a stabbing death.. The crime doesn't disappear with the guns, it just takes a different form! Removing guns from a society will do nothing but lower shootings, and then stabbings and beatings will take the place of the shootings.

and I seriously doubt that removal of guns from society would result in an equal number of killings from knives and beatings.

How many of those guns that gang members owned were owned legally?!! ENFORCE the current laws...

Exactly!!

Just a week ago an innocent little girl was killed by a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles. She wasn't the target, she was just in the wrong place when gangs were doing their thing. It happens fairly frequently.

How many people do you think would be killed by drive-by knife throwings?


Bill,

Last week a little girl was raped by an old man, does that mean we should cut the pecker off of every old man?

How many children would be raped if old men didn't have pecker's?

I don't know about your pecker Bret, but mine is not capable of rapid fire raping of multiple little girls on the other side of the street.

I don't know about your pecker Bret, but mine is not capable of rapid fire raping of multiple little girls on the other side of the street.

Bill,

You mentioned 1 girl killed in a drive by.

Her death was tragic, I would bet the guy had already committed other crimes before he committed the drive by, so most likely he should have been in jail.

Even if this was his first crime, it is illegal to do drive by shootings and it is illegal to kill people, what makes you think he would have obeyed any other laws?

I agree with Bret, the laws are in place. Enforce them and we don't need more laws. From Shell Island to guns.

If enforcing the laws on the books is such an easy solution, why aren't we doing it already?

If enforcing the laws on the books is such an easy solution, why aren't we doing it already?

If the District Attorney's are prosecuting the laws we already have, what is the point in making more laws?

Quite a few of the gun laws are unconstitutional, hopefully once the Supreme Court weighs in on the Second Amendment, there will be some of them repealed.

I see no reason why there is a ban on the importation and manufacture of fully automatic rifles and sub machine guns, they are no more deadly than a bolt action rifle or a semi automatic rifle.

Bret- you didn't answer my question. If enforcing the laws on the books is the answer, why aren't we doing it?

I see no reason why there is a ban on the importation and manufacture of fully automatic rifles and sub machine guns, they are no more deadly than a bolt action rifle or a semi automatic rifle.

I better not touch that one if you can't see how being able to squeeze off hundreds of rounds per trigger pull isn't more deadly than one at a time.

I wonder why the military bothers to have fully automatic machine guns if they aren't more deadly. Do they just want to waste rounds?

Bill, your question is so vague and simply echoes everyone's sentiment. The laws are in place, criminals don't obey laws. That is why they are criminals. Ban all guns and criminals still have guns. Enforce the existing laws and hold district attorneys and judges accountable for their decisions.

I better not touch that one if you can't see how being able to squeeze off hundreds of rounds per trigger pull isn't more deadly than one at a time.

I wonder why the military bothers to have fully automatic machine guns if they aren't more deadly. Do they just want to waste rounds?

The M 4's and M 16 a2's have a burst mode where it will fire 2 or 3 rounds per trigger pull, the burst mode and the semi automatic mode are more effective at aimed accurate shots (meaning more deadly) the full auto mode is good for laying down cover fire and is not as effective as an aimed shot.

It has been proven that many men in combat will fire their weapons but will purposely shoot in area's they don't think people are in, it is not human nature to kill another man.

Quite a few of the Military Officers I have spoken to that have been in combat have told me that they forbid their guys to have the weapon on full auto, unless they were carrying the SAW.

BTW the military Sniper's have a lower round fired per Kill ratio than the guys using full auto weapons.

I know I would be a lot more effective with one of my bolt action rifles.

Bret- you didn't answer my question. If enforcing the laws on the books is the answer, why aren't we doing it?
I don't know who this "we" is you keep referring to.

I am not a DA, so I am not the right person to ask.

One of the 1st crimes that the DA will drop in a plea bargain is the gun laws, as they have minimum mandatory sentences.

I think DA's and Judges should be held accountable for their actions, yet they aren't, look at Nifong, not much really happened to him, and the girl who lied about being raped has not been charged with a crime.

BTW the military Sniper's have a lower round fired per Kill ratio than the guys using full auto weapons.

Of course they do. They are using tack drivers with high powered scopes and they aren't on the front lines under fire. They are camouflaged and off of the main lines picking off the enemies that expose themselves. To compare a sniper to a grunt on the front lines is like comparing apples to watermelons. Sure, they both have seeds and both are fruit. Perfect compariason.:rolleyes:

Of course they do. They are using tack drivers with high powered scopes and they aren't on the front lines under fire. They are camouflaged and off of the main lines picking off the enemies that expose themselves. To compare a sniper to a grunt on the front lines is like comparing apples to watermelons. Sure, they both have seeds and both are fruit. Perfect compariason.:rolleyes:

How far away do you think snipers are?

They most definitely are on the front lines if not behind them.

They are in 2 man squads, and don't have others that can help them out when the shit hits the fan, their best defense is cover and concealment, once a shot is fired they lose that.

Howie,

I don't see how its vague to ask why present laws aren't being enforced. If that is the problem, then we need to address the cause and fix it.

What incentives to DAs have for not enforcing the law? Isn't being tough on crime the way a DA earns his reputation?

Actually, I guess I can think of one answer, but it will just open up another can of worms. DAs may have to waste far too many resources on our insane and unwinnable war on drugs.

And a Superior Court Judge friend of mine, a Libertarian, said the same thing. He advocates decriminalization of most drugs so as to free up his courtroom for more important stuff.

But maybe we don't want to go there in this thread, even though the problems are related. Guns are enough to tackle.

Bill,

Most cases are not taken to trial, they are plea bargained, and with many gun laws having minimum mandatory sentences, that is one of the 1st charges dropped.

Many DA's IMO are lazy and want to do what is quick and easy, plea bargains are easy and count as a conviction.

If they take a case to court and lose some of the charges, it goes in the loss column, DA's track wins and losses, if you don't believe me look at how they will spout their conviction rate when running for office.

I don't know why people have such a hard time blaming the criminal for the crimes they commit with guns, when a gun crime is committed, immediately there is a call for more gun control, yet drunk driving kills far more people than guns do, yet there is no outcry for more laws with alcohol or the banning of it.

You cited a case of a drive by shooting, and asked the question about how many drive by knifing we would have, why not ban the automobile?

no car= no drive by.

I would much rather have a GUN and not need it than need one and not have one.I'm getting too old to protect my property with a good old fist fight.My boat,car and home will not be comprimised.

Bret- you didn't answer my question. If enforcing the laws on the books is the answer, why aren't we doing it?

Bill,

I answered your questions, how about answering one of mine?

Since it is already illegal to shoot and kill someone, what good would additional gun laws do?

I think Mike made the case pretty clearly why snipers have a better kill per round ratio, in spite of your trying to talk around it. But I'll add a couple of ideas.

If I wanted to haul ass down a street and kill as many of the other gang members and their families as possible, I think I'd rather have an automatic than a single shot.

Also, I flew some airplanes that had guns mounted, but not a one had a single shot capability.

Since it is already illegal to shoot and kill someone, what good would additional gun laws do?

Its tough to argue with a master of oversimplification.

How about different gun laws?

BTW, I just have to ask. Does the NRA really say that guns are just as necessary to our species as peckers, or did you dream that one up yourself?

Also, I flew some airplanes that had guns mounted, but not a one had a single shot capability.

I would imagine one would have to throw quite a few pieces of lead into the air to hit something while travelling at a high rate of speed. I have a hard time believing that a plane mounted gun could be effective as a single shot weapon.

But, all that still does not make the plane the killer.

But, all that still does not make the plane the killer.

No, but it was related to Bret's statement that he couldn't see why machine guns couldn't be imported, since they were no more deadly than single shot weapons.

And I hate to leap several pages ahead, but as I've said in earlier theads, why not legalize suitcase nukes? After all, its the person that detonates the weapon who is the killer. Its not the nuke that is the killer.

Let people carry them, but just say that its illegal to use them to kill other people.

Perhaps they possess them because they have a big cockroach problem in the kitchen.

No, but it was related to Bret's statement that he couldn't see why machine guns couldn't be imported, since they were no more deadly than single shot weapons.

And I hate to leap several pages ahead, but as I've said in earlier theads, why not legalize suitcase nukes? After all, its the person that detonates the weapon who is the killer. Its not the nuke that is the killer.

Let people carry them, but just say that its illegal to use them to kill other people.

Perhaps they possess them because they have a big cockroach problem in the kitchen.

Excellent point Bill. However our current laws prohibit suitcase nukes in several ways. Hopefully, those laws are being enforced. Guns are also permitted, by the constitution. I acquire mine legally and don't plan to use them other than to protect myself and my family.

Excellent point Bill. However our current laws prohibit suitcase nukes in several ways. Hopefully, those laws are being enforced. Guns are also permitted, by the constitution. I acquire mine legally and don't plan to use them other than to protect myself and my family.

According to many people on this site, at least as they have expressed it in discussions on that other site, suitcase nukes cannot be prohibited. I certainly agree that they should be, but a lot of people take this literally.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

After all, arms is not defined. At the time this was written, arms meant muskets. But I have been told by gun advocates who are on this site that nukes are just another form of arms. After all, the NRA thinks its a slippery slope. If we prohibit any type of arms- nukes, armor piercing bullets, etc., then we'll end up with all our weapons confiscated. Or at least that's what they say.

I own arms. I grew up using arms to shoot ducks, quail, and doves. But I don't need armor piercing bullets or nukes, and I think that the right to bear arms can be and has been infrnged. Now its just a matter of where we draw the line, but we are not allowed to say that because of the slippery slope that the NRA is so concerned with.

But then I have a lot of weird ideas about permissable limits on rights. I think I should be allowed to drive my car (as long as I have a license) but I don't think I should be able to drive my car down my street past the middle school at 100 mph. I'm willing to let government trample on my rights in reasonable ways that serve the greater good of society.

I agree, there has to be limits in a society like ours. There are too many people and rules protect us from chaos.

I think Mike made the case pretty clearly why snipers have a better kill per round ratio, in spite of your trying to talk around it. But I'll add a couple of ideas.

If I wanted to haul ass down a street and kill as many of the other gang members and their families as possible, I think I'd rather have an automatic than a single shot.

Also, I flew some airplanes that had guns mounted, but not a one had a single shot capability.

Bill,

As usual you are taking part of what I said out of context, I also mentioned Semi automatic weapons as well.

You say that "Arms" is not defined, yet Free Speech wasn't defined either, and back then they didn't have radio, tv or the internet.

Where is your favorite amendment "separation of church and state"?

Also where is the right to privacy that 'roe v. wade' comes from?

If the second amendment was read the way the others were, there would be several laws that would be found to be unconstitutional.

According to many people on this site, at least as they have expressed it in discussions on that other site, suitcase nukes cannot be prohibited. I certainly agree that they should be, but a lot of people take this literally.



After all, arms is not defined. At the time this was written, arms meant muskets. But I have been told by gun advocates who are on this site that nukes are just another form of arms. After all, the NRA thinks its a slippery slope. If we prohibit any type of arms- nukes, armor piercing bullets, etc., then we'll end up with all our weapons confiscated. Or at least that's what they say.

I own arms. I grew up using arms to shoot ducks, quail, and doves. But I don't need armor piercing bullets or nukes, and I think that the right to bear arms can be and has been infrnged. Now its just a matter of where we draw the line, but we are not allowed to say that because of the slippery slope that the NRA is so concerned with.

But then I have a lot of weird ideas about permissable limits on rights. I think I should be allowed to drive my car (as long as I have a license) but I don't think I should be able to drive my car down my street past the middle school at 100 mph. I'm willing to let government trample on my rights in reasonable ways that serve the greater good of society.

Bill,

Please show me who said nukes should be permissible.

The second amendment is not about hunting, it never has been.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

You may not agree with the 2nd Amendment, but it doesn't matter what you agree with.

The right to bear arms is different than driving and owning a car, where in the constitution does it give you the right to drive a car?

Ahh yes, another divisive topic mental masturbation endless loop. Are you guys going to solve the issue of gun control on a spearfishing message board? Bret, don't you have a construction project to work on? Billy Mac, don't you have some Ensure that you have to go drink? When all of you finish beating this already very dead horse into glue feel free to select from any of the topics below to continue your circle jerk. Just remember to wipe down the counters when you're done.

*Abortion-Does life start at conception or at birth?

*Death penalty

*Evolution vs creationism

*Convervatism vs. liberalism

*Is homosexuality genetic or casued by outside factors? Marcus can moderate this debate.

*Immigration

*Iraq-Stay the course or withdrawl troops immediately?

*Stem cell research-Immoral?

*Nationalized govenment run medical care or status quo private system?

*Kibbles n' Bits or raw chicken leg?

*Gunnel hunch or bucket bomb?

*Charmin or salt water washdown?

:D:D:D

Bret, don't you have a construction project to work on? :D:D:D

Yes I do.

I need some pencils, staples and paper clips, can you sell me some? :D

Yes I do.

I need some pencils, staples and paper clips, can you sell me some? :D

Let me put you in contact with my organ grinder monkey.....he has some very nice pencils in his cup. Maybe we can get him set up for a trans-species menage-a-trois with you and your goat :smthumbup:.

http://www.askart.com/AskART/photos/ILL11152003/97.jpg

Is it just me or does anyone else believe those wonderfull European Utopias would all be gearman speaking cookie cutter Arians, if it wasn't for the second Amendment. Furthemore the republic Kalifornistan, has the most restrictive gun laws of any other state, so by bills reasoning the amount of gun violence in that state should be negligable. Whats the ration of guns to drive byes in Florida, Sure peace and democracy prevail at the present time, Im sure youd agree it hasn't always been the case, and unless you have some sort of crystal ball it would be foolish to take it for granted it will always be that way. Have you read any of the Crime statistics after swepping gun confiscations, like Australia. Im sure the pre WWII Fins would also have a fair bit to say about your warn and fuzzy logic of
No guns=no drive byes.
thankfully the founding fathers din't have the access to endless amount of granola to cloud their judgement or we'd already be wearring bar codes, Birkenstocks and singing kumba ya while being home invaded trying to stop the criminal by reading endless laws at him;)
Carry on.

If enforcing the laws on the books is such an easy solution, why aren't we doing it already?

Because most of the people who are responsible for enforcing the laws are criminals themselves. They would rather penalize you with fines then make you spend some time in the slammer. That would be a better question, why are they making people pay $$ instead of paying with a chunk of their life in prison, or better yet, with their entire life? Go ahead and kill them off, and do it quickly... Most of the people who commit the crimes will be paying with money they've stolen from honest hard-working citizens.. After they get out of their minimum sentence and pay their fine, they have to go back on the streets to rob someone else for the money to replace their losses. If some wannabe-gangster who shot that little girl was taken to jail, tried in a court of law, and then swung from the gallows all within a couple of weeks time the next one would think twice about it.. Instead, they'd rather go to gangster-disney world (prison) which is the same life they live on the streets... Ask any prison guard about the conditions inside.. They can get drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and about anything else they want. It's basically a hang-out for all their little gangster buddies and isn't a punishment.. The prison guards are dirty themselves, they're the ones who bring the shit in their because of their low pay. They can smuggle in some drugs and make more in a day than they do all week, the temptation is too high.. The conditions wouldn't be this way if you didn't let the scum of the earth spend life in prison, that's ridiculous.. They killed someone, so kill them.. An eye for an eye..

Bail is also a joke... How can paying some ridiculously high amount of money substitute for sitting your ass in jail? It can't.. Most of the criminals are rolling in money anyways or else they wouldn't be risking their neck to do it, they'd work a 9-5 if it was more profitable.

Awww yeah! How are you m-f*ckers doing tonight?!! No place to hide it baby, no place to run! You pulled the trigger on my LOVE GUN!!!!

http://www.kissasylum.com/kreations/albums/LoveGun.jpg

I got a kick out of this one.. :rofl: Thanks for that... I think D4B has just solved the gun debate with his last post.

Bill,

You say that "Arms" is not defined, yet Free Speech wasn't defined either, and back then they didn't have radio, tv or the internet.

Where is your favorite amendment "separation of church and state"?

Also where is the right to privacy that 'roe v. wade' comes from?

If the second amendment was read the way the others were, there would be several laws that would be found to be unconstitutional.

I'm not sure that I follow all that you said, but the first sentence gives me some hope. It sounds like you are admitting that the Constitution is a living document, and that someone actually has to interpret how it should be applied in a society that has circumstances and technologies beyond those that were even contemplated by the framers.

Arms meant muskets, so we have to decide how that applies to today's choice of deadly weapons. Freedom of speech meant someone standing on a soapbox in the village square or on a podium in a theater, speaking only as far as his voice would carry, unaided by a microphone and speakers, much less over the airways. Now we have to decide how that applies today.

You seem to think that the establshment clause doesn't require separation of state, while it seems that generations of justices disagree. I guess you would be happy in an Islamic state if that is the religion that the rulers selected?

It sounds to me like you have no problem at all with interpreting what the Constitution says as long as you are the one doing the interpreting.

Is it just me or does anyone else believe those wonderfull European Utopias would all be gearman speaking cookie cutter Arians, if it wasn't for the second Amendment.

I want to make sure what that meant. Did you mean "German speaking" and "Aryan?" If so, are you implying that our right to bear arms had a thing to do with our entry into WWII? I have a hard time making any connection.

The 2d Amendment didn't establish a draft and mobilize and arm millions of men. We didn't ask the draftees to bring their own arms. When my father and uncle invaded Europe, the government issued them M1 rifles- they didn't have to bring their own shotguns. The 2d Amendment didn't organize our industries to produce weapons that finally overwhelmed the Nazis.

When I went to Vietnam, I didn't take my own weapons either- the government issued them to me.

And BTW, the Japanese have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, but that didn't keep them from mobilizing and arming some very effective armed forces.

Saying that the 2d Amendment is responsible for freeing Europe is a lot like saying that if there were no guns, knives would cause an equal number of deaths.

Furthemore the republic Kalifornistan, has the most restrictive gun laws of any other state, so by bills reasoning the amount of gun violence in that state should be negligable.

That's it, go ahead and get your California angst off your chest. I'm sorry that the state threatens you so much.

Bill,

Please show me who said nukes should be permissible.



I'd have to go back and search all those Spearboard threads, and I'm not going to take all that time. But at least two guys, arguing that the right to bear arms could absolutely not be infringed in any way, went ahead and said that included nukes when I backed them into a corner. I'm pretty certain I can recall who one of them was, and I bet you can guess too, but I'm not going to name names without digging for the threads, and I'm too lazy.

But why talk history- you and I are here. What do you think? Nukes are arms. Are you actually conceding that government can limit the right to bear nukes?

If so, then you have conceded that the right to bear arms can be infringed. Now all we have to settle is where to draw the line.

Bill,

If the 2nd amendment is read the way the 1st amendment as well as the others are, there would be no restrictions on privately owned nuclear weapons.

The constitution is not a living document that changes with the times.

It says what it means and means what it says.

Roe v. Wade is a prime example of a right that clearly is not in the constitution, it is based on the woman's right to privacy, if that is the basis for Roe v. Wade, why is prostitution and drug use illegal?

It seems to me that if a woman can kill an unborn baby due to her right to privacy, she should be able to smoke some weed and charge for sex as well.

Bret,

I think smoking weed and selling sex should be legal. Does that make you feel better?

I still don't think you should have a nuke, but at least you came right out and said that you think it should be legal. Just don't spread it around, because that is the sort of thing that makes gun nuts look unreasonable and keeps much of the public from taking them seriously.

Once they know that you think you have a right to nukes, then they are unlikely to even talk to you about automatic weapons.

Bret,

I think smoking weed and selling sex should be legal. Does that make you feel better?

I still don't think you should have a nuke, but at least you came right out and said that you think it should be legal. Just don't spread it around, because that is the sort of thing that makes gun nuts look unreasonable keeps much of the public from taking them seriously.


I said if the 2nd amendment was read the way the others are, they would be legal, I never said they should be.

Even if they are legal to own, where are you going to buy one and how much do you think it is going to cost?

I said if the 2nd amendment was read the way the others are, they would be legal, I never said they should be.

Well, we're making progress. You do admit that the right to arms can and should be abridged. Now we are just arguing over the details.

Or are you going to say that nukes aren't arms? Load one on a stealth bomber headed to Russia, and see if we can convince them that the aircraft is unarmed.

Even if they are legal to own, where are you going to buy one and how much do you think it is going to cost?

I don't really know, but I bet if I could establish myself as someone who was willing to use the nuke in an American city and knew what I was doing, I'd have no problem getting someone to buy me one and cover my travel expenses as well.

But since you at least agree that they should be illegal (abridged) then if the FBI caught me walking down the street with one, they could bust me for possession rather than waiting for me to break the law with it and kill a bunch of people. (Nukes don't kill people, people kill people)

Well, we're making progress. You do admit that the right to arms can and should be abridged. Now we are just arguing over the details.

But since you at least agree that they should be illegal (abridged) then if the FBI caught me walking down the street with one, they could bust me for possession rather than waiting for me to break the law with it and kill a bunch of people. (Nukes don't kill people, people kill people)

Bill,

I never said that the Right to Bear Arms can or should be abridged.

Even if nukes were legal to own, exactly where are you going to get one?

It seems to me if they were readily available, they would have come from the Soviet Union, yet they are not readily available.

Do you really think they are small enough that you can walk down the street with one?

Bret,

Do you have one, or two, of these yet? :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsV50T5uEyw

Bill,

I never said that the Right to Bear Arms can or should be abridged.


You sure did. You said nukes should be illegal.

Does anyone actually agree that a nuke is an arm in the context you are using? Websters says it specifically refers to firearms which is defined as, a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder

Nukes are an explosive. All explosives should be controlled because they are significantly more capable of mass destruction than anything which shoots projectiles. They are not firearms and to try to make a parallel between nukes and guns is absurd to say the least.

Even if it was legal to possess a nuke, it is NOT legal to posess uranium or any other highly radioactive substance. It is also illegal to possess high explosives, or any explosive device, that is required to detonate a nuke.

Does anyone actually agree that a nuke is an arm in the context you are using?

But who knows what context the framers of the Constitution were using?

Even if it was legal to possess a nuke, it is NOT legal to posess uranium or any other highly radioactive substance. It is also illegal to possess high explosives, or any explosive device, that is required to detonate a nuke.

What about yellow cake?

But who knows what context the framers of the Constitution were using?

I suppose someone with more free time (ahem) could consult a historical dictionary at the local library and get back with us on that:D

Mmmmmmmm.....cake.

http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/drooling_homer.JPG

Bill,

I never said that the Right to Bear Arms can or should be abridged.






You sure did. You said nukes should be illegal.

Bill,

Post a link showing where I said nukes should be legal or illegal.

Constitutionally,could a nuke be considered an arm to be used in DEFENSE of life,liberty,etc.. ? If not,then I could see where it could slip thru a con. loophole as I believe a nuke is an offensive weapon.I could,however,defend life and home with M2 .50 cal so I believe it does fall in the frame work.Just a thought.

Bill,

Post a link showing where I said nukes should be legal or illegal.

OK. This is from a prior post in this thread.

I said if the 2nd amendment was read the way the others are, they would be legal, I never said they should be.