What the 2nd Ammendment is for

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Really bad on gas milage

...try changing the oil in that baby!

[hi_im_god]

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

So....see ya in 200 years

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

So....see ya in 200 years

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

how does the act of ownership infer criminality? it's the criminal you should worry about, not whether a law abiding citizen owns a certain type of weapon. would the crime rate go down if i was told i couldn't own a machine gun? NO, because i'm not a criminal.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

how does the act of ownership infer criminality? it's the criminal you should worry about, not whether a law abiding citizen owns a certain type of weapon. would the crime rate go down if i was told i couldn't own a machine gun? NO, because i'm not a criminal.

Correct! "Laws are for the lawbreaker"....The Bible

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

None taken,GBBob......I don't think machine guns should be legal...but I DO think that the average Joe/Jane should be able to have more firepower than a pistol to defend against intruders and people who mean them harm. This societys' proclivity for taking what isn't theirs is alarming, to say the least.
Add to that the propensity for violence to strangers(hold-ups,car-jacking,armed robbery and home invasions) and you just HAVE to be allowed to prepare yourself. As stated before, BIG dogs are nice too.

Originally Posted by GBBob

Timmi...No offense..but please explain why you think citizens should be able to possess machine guns.

I think if you have to ask this question,
you dont wanna hear an answer.

It could be very dissappointing and lead
one to question the sanity of our species.
And make it clear that "our" time on this
earth as Homo sapiens is going to be an
evolutionary blip on the screen of time.

But by God while we were here...
gosh darn it was damn exciting what with
all those explosions and such.

oops just noticed the response never mind...
WE ARE SAVED.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by pgardn

I think if you have to ask this question,
you dont wanna hear an answer.

It could be very dissappointing and lead
one to question the sanity of our species.
And make it clear that "our" time on this
earth as Homo sapiens is going to be an
evolutionary blip on the screen of time.

But by God while we were here...
gosh darn it was damn exciting what with
all those explosions and such.

oops just noticed the response never mind...
WE ARE SAVED.

hopefully, you read all the posts

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.

so what's keeping me from my nuke?

it's clearly not the constitution since the framer's were smart enough to understand weaponry would advance.

i'm suggesting there are limits on rights. if you don't think so try slander. or libel. and then cry that someone is taking away your constitutionally protected rights when you're dragged into court. see how far that gets you.

i tried yelling "theatre" at a crowded fire but no one got the humor.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

so what's keeping me from my nuke?

it's clearly not the constitution since the framer's were smart enough to understand weaponry would advance.

i'm suggesting there are limits on rights. if you don't think so try slander. or libel. and then cry that someone is taking away your constitutionally protected rights when you're dragged into court. see how far that gets you.

i tried yelling "theatre" at a crowded fire but no one got the humor.

it is amusing to me that some think the nra is over the top(and yes, they can be, and no, i'm not a member), and then they grab onto the likes of nukes and uzis when the topic of gun control comes up. yeah, HIG, i think people should own nukes. the problem is when folks toss about the terms semi-automatic and automatic as two categories of guns that should be 'banned'. i have shotguns that would be considered semi-automatic. people can never seem to agree on the details of many topics of conversation(when does life begin?)-i'd hate to think that folks who haven't a clue about guns individually making a blanket decision to ban 'all semi-automatic weapons' thinking they just took ak-47's and uzis off the street. congrats, you just took semi's such as two of my shotguns away from all of us law-abiding citizens, leaving only felons and felons-to-be with those weapons. it's funny, us law abiding citizens who do no harm are the ones who would give up these weapons. we abide by the law. but the ones who don't-they're going to give up their guns? really?
again, i want to know-how does my ownership of guns affect anyone? raise the crime rate? or my father owning them? my father in law? it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's funny, us law abiding citizens who do no harm are the ones who would give up these weapons. we abide by the law. but the ones who don't-they're going to give up their guns? really?
again, i want to know-how does my ownership of guns affect anyone? raise the crime rate? or my father owning them? my father in law? it doesn't.

It really only does in that if you do own guns,
your home becomes a more desirable target
when you are away. You are actually more likely
to get robbed. They will case your house more closely
than they would mine.

This is what I get from the cops that I know anyway.
And this is in San Antonio, Texas. Some criminals actually
hang at some of the sporting good stores to find the
people who own guns legally. They want to see that
right to carry card. Because they dont have that right.

One more addition here, the right to carry concealed
weapons state.

Road rage:

Seems like every week someone gets shot by someone
else who carries. Many times they both pull the weapon
and flash it and no one panics (besides me).

But sporadically they shoot. Hot tempers and guns
are not good.
I never ever honk, shoot any fingers,
nothing except a big "I am sorry" mouthed in a car if ANY misunderstanding
occurs. Only honk if I am about to get hit. Never to get attention
in any other way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

It really only does in that if you do own guns,
your home becomes a more desirable target
when you are away. You are actually more likely
to get robbed. They will case your house more closely
than they would mine.

This is what I get from the cops that I know anyway.
And this is in San Antonio, Texas. Some criminals actually
hang at some of the sporting good stores to find the
people who own guns legally. They want to see that
right to carry card. Because they dont have that right.

really? i guess i better start locking my front door when i leave. btw, my guns are all locked in a fire proof gun safe. if they can get in that, they deserve them i guess.
i find it hard to believe that criminals will seek out a house with weapons, when there are so many easier targets out there. in other words, i don't quite believe that theory. nor do i see how my legal ownership contributes to the amount of crimes committed by people with guns. also, gun crimes have decreased every year for years now-other than '05, and gun ownership has gone thru the roof-both after 9/11 and after barack obama won election. and that's without more gun control legislation.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.

This whole "personal freedom" thing drives me crazy. Of course our forefathers didn't think that a 7 yr old could shoot himself with a semi-automatic weapon at a gun show. Most advances in society benefit us, but anyone who thinks we are better off because weaponary advanced as much as it did is mistaken.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

This whole "personal freedom" thing drives me crazy. Of course our forefathers didn't think that a 7 yr old could shoot himself with a semi-automatic weapon at a gun show. Most advances in society benefit us, but anyone who thinks we are better off because weaponary advanced as much as it did is mistaken.

I think your last line in a "non sequitur". (ie) it does not follow.
Advanced weoponry, as well as advanced "anything" should be used with caution! No offense

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I think your last line in a "non sequitur". (ie) it does not follow.
Advanced weoponry, as well as advanced "anything" should be used with caution! No offense

It wasn't a non-sequitur...all ammendments are now defined by interpretation. And I'll argue till the end that none of our forefathers thought you should be able to own a semi automatic weapon in case someone wants to steal your TV.

anyway..back to Giant Oak...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GBBob

It wasn't a non-sequitur...all ammendments are now defined by interpretation. And I'll argue till the end that none of our forefathers thought you should be able to own a semi automatic weapon in case someone wants to steal your TV.

anyway..back to Giant Oak...

GBBob....you're falling apart here.....obviously they had no knowledge of
special weapons..or TV's for that matter. But you seem to be falling on the side of burglars when you make that statement. I wouldn't shoot a guy stealing my TV, but I'd try to stop it. If he escalated that with a weapon, then it's a different scenario. Remember..it is my castle.