Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 . . . 24 · Next

AuthorMessage
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18996
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1330155 - Posted: 22 Jan 2013, 14:15:56 UTC - in response to Message 1330139.  

Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Government. Centralizing power in government. Government taking away the last check on government. And government tyranny.

There... over three hundred posts in this thread and I believe the answer has finally been reached.

No it hasn't. Centralised government should be used more so that there is no confusion when going from one area to the next. Whether it be about education, guns, driving, building regulations or whatever.
Local government should only be responsible for deciding thing like, should we build the new school here, here or there. Not on what subjects should be taught inside the school.
ID: 1330155 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1330388 - Posted: 23 Jan 2013, 16:11:55 UTC - in response to Message 1330343.  


Do you ever fact check the stuff you put up? Because right now I am a little embarrassed for you.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1330388 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1330618 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 5:33:11 UTC

Only one quote from the video is wrong and it's the first one given by Washington. The rest are true and correct.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1330618 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1330628 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 6:02:14 UTC - in response to Message 1330618.  

Post a transcript. Everyone here reads faster than talking heads talk. Otherwise I suspect propaganda value is the reason you post.

ID: 1330628 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1330649 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 7:01:32 UTC

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

"This Article challenges the insurrectionist model. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions.[52]"

An interesting, well researched paper on the true history of the 2nd amendment. Also explains where I.D. is getting his information from.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1330649 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1330655 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 7:40:57 UTC

In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise


Like Many have Stated Here, The US Constitution is A Fluid, Changeable In Interpretation, Through Time, Document.

Now, In The 21st Century, We, Certain-Over 50%-of The US Population, Do Believe, Tyranny Is Suspect, And, The Interpretation Now, In Our Time, Of The Second Admendment, Is, One Of An Insurrectionist Nature.

PROFessor S. Say: There It Goes Again, Nature, Evolving, not so much to Make US Better, But To Adapt to CHANGING Environments. he ahe ahe hehe

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1330655 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1330657 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 7:44:53 UTC - in response to Message 1330655.  

In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise


Like Many have Stated Here, The US Constitution is A Fluid, Changeable In Interpretation, Through Time, Document.

Now, In The 21st Century, We, Certain-Over 50%-of The US Population, Do Believe, Tyranny Is Suspect, And, The Interpretation Now, In Our Time, Of The Second Admendment, Is, One Of An Insurrectionist Nature.

PROFessor S. Say: There It Goes Again, Nature, Evolving, not so much to Make US Better, But To Adapt to CHANGING Environments. he ahe ahe hehe

and who lobbied to change it?

From the paper:
"The bulk of this writing has been produced by a small band of true believers who belong not merely to the individual rights school of thought but a particular wing commonly called "insurrectionist theory."[35] The leader of this band is Stephen P. Halbrook,[36] who, with the support of tens of thousands of dollars in NRA grants,[37] has written no less than two books and thirteen law review articles advocating this particular theory of the Second Amendment.[38] Insurrectionist theory is premised on [Page 319] the idea that the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry is to be prepared to fight the government itself. Halbrook believes that "the Second Amendment's framers anticipated a force of the whole armed populace, not a select group, to counter inroads on freedom by government,"[39] and that they intended "to guarantee the right of the people to have .their private arms' to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia."[40] Such writings conjure up a romantic image of the colonial militia: rugged individualists who answer to no one but their own conscience and stand ready to protect their homes, families, and communities from all manner of threats, both foreign and domestic. Because they serve no master other than their own sense of patriotism, they cannot be manipulated or commandeered as might a government controlled force. Because they are armed, they have the means, as well as the will, to resist tyranny."
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1330657 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1330663 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 8:00:53 UTC

and who lobbied to change it?


The MOB. You Know, The MOB All Governments, Politicians, And Neighbors FEAR.

PROFessor S. Say: No Need To Fear A Dangerous, Formidable Intellect, when Da MOB Gots YO Backs.

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1330663 · Report as offensive
Profile Jim_S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 00
Posts: 4705
Credit: 64,560,357
RAC: 31
United States
Message 1330673 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 9:10:19 UTC

Re-Opened.
ID: 1330673 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1330735 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 16:20:20 UTC - in response to Message 1329969.  

Free men have guns. Slaves don't. I'm a free man and intend to keep it that way.......

....Why are there *some* examples of countries that have banned guns and still those who live there choose to tolerate less freedom?.......

I live in a country that has very strong gun laws but am I less free than a citizen of the US ?

Neither my children or I get groped by TSA gorillas when passing through airport security, I don't get stopped by a paramilitary force for random checks to see if I'm a "terrorist" while on the highway or train or bus station, law enforcement officers don't shoot first and ask questions later, our security services do not overtly monitor text messages and emails and I can send my kids to school without any worry that some psycho with an assault rifle is going to use them for target practice.

If your only definition of freedom is the right to have a gun(s) in your house, you have a strange idea of freedom. The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

From what I see, the US proposals for gun control only limit the ownership of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. Apart from the jerk off factor, why does a private citizen need to own weapons of this type ?

No-one is trying to take away your hunting rifle.

T.A.
ID: 1330735 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1330746 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 16:59:27 UTC - in response to Message 1330735.  

Free men have guns. Slaves don't. I'm a free man and intend to keep it that way.......

....Why are there *some* examples of countries that have banned guns and still those who live there choose to tolerate less freedom?.......

I live in a country that has very strong gun laws but am I less free than a citizen of the US ?

Neither my children or I get groped by TSA gorillas when passing through airport security, I don't get stopped by a paramilitary force for random checks to see if I'm a "terrorist" while on the highway or train or bus station, law enforcement officers don't shoot first and ask questions later, our security services do not overtly monitor text messages and emails and I can send my kids to school without any worry that some psycho with an assault rifle is going to use them for target practice.

If your only definition of freedom is the right to have a gun(s) in your house, you have a strange idea of freedom. The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

From what I see, the US proposals for gun control only limit the ownership of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. Apart from the jerk off factor, why does a private citizen need to own weapons of this type ?

No-one is trying to take away your hunting rifle.

T.A.

Woohoo You get it!!!!


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1330746 · Report as offensive
Profile Jim_S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 00
Posts: 4705
Credit: 64,560,357
RAC: 31
United States
Message 1330749 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:05:17 UTC - in response to Message 1330746.  
Last modified: 24 Jan 2013, 17:07:01 UTC


I live in a country that has very strong gun laws but am I less free than a citizen of the US ?

Neither my children or I get groped by TSA gorillas when passing through airport security, I don't get stopped by a paramilitary force for random checks to see if I'm a "terrorist" while on the highway or train or bus station, law enforcement officers don't shoot first and ask questions later, our security services do not overtly monitor text messages and emails and I can send my kids to school without any worry that some psycho with an assault rifle is going to use them for target practice.

If your only definition of freedom is the right to have a gun(s) in your house, you have a strange idea of freedom. The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

From what I see, the US proposals for gun control only limit the ownership of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. Apart from the jerk off factor, why does a private citizen need to own weapons of this type ?

No-one is trying to take away your hunting rifle.

T.A.

Woohoo You get it!!!!

+1

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)
ID: 1330749 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1330751 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:06:23 UTC - in response to Message 1330735.  

The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

+ Infinity

The terrorists win when you let them.

ID: 1330751 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1330758 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:23:07 UTC - in response to Message 1330735.  

Free men have guns. Slaves don't. I'm a free man and intend to keep it that way.......

....Why are there *some* examples of countries that have banned guns and still those who live there choose to tolerate less freedom?.......

I live in a country that has very strong gun laws but am I less free than a citizen of the US ?

Neither my children or I get groped by TSA gorillas when passing through airport security, I don't get stopped by a paramilitary force for random checks to see if I'm a "terrorist" while on the highway or train or bus station, law enforcement officers don't shoot first and ask questions later, our security services do not overtly monitor text messages and emails and I can send my kids to school without any worry that some psycho with an assault rifle is going to use them for target practice.

If your only definition of freedom is the right to have a gun(s) in your house, you have a strange idea of freedom. The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

From what I see, the US proposals for gun control only limit the ownership of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. Apart from the jerk off factor, why does a private citizen need to own weapons of this type ?

No-one is trying to take away your hunting rifle.

T.A.

First off what do you think is a miltary grade weapon? And the second is what if my hunting rifle is a civilian version of an AR platform. In my state I can hunt certain game with it. And just so you know im allowed a 5 round magazine when hunting. There is no bayonette lug nor a flash hider and or muzzle brake.
As for jerk off factor, Thats something for people who dont know what they are talking about.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1330758 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1330762 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:38:11 UTC - in response to Message 1330758.  

Free men have guns. Slaves don't. I'm a free man and intend to keep it that way.......

....Why are there *some* examples of countries that have banned guns and still those who live there choose to tolerate less freedom?.......

I live in a country that has very strong gun laws but am I less free than a citizen of the US ?

Neither my children or I get groped by TSA gorillas when passing through airport security, I don't get stopped by a paramilitary force for random checks to see if I'm a "terrorist" while on the highway or train or bus station, law enforcement officers don't shoot first and ask questions later, our security services do not overtly monitor text messages and emails and I can send my kids to school without any worry that some psycho with an assault rifle is going to use them for target practice.

If your only definition of freedom is the right to have a gun(s) in your house, you have a strange idea of freedom. The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

From what I see, the US proposals for gun control only limit the ownership of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. Apart from the jerk off factor, why does a private citizen need to own weapons of this type ?

No-one is trying to take away your hunting rifle.

T.A.

First off what do you think is a miltary grade weapon? And the second is what if my hunting rifle is a civilian version of an AR platform. In my state I can hunt certain game with it. And just so you know im allowed a 5 round magazine when hunting. There is no bayonette lug nor a flash hider and or muzzle brake.
As for jerk off factor, Thats something for people who dont know what they are talking about.


+1
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1330762 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30591
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1330770 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:49:31 UTC - in response to Message 1330758.  

First off what do you think is a miltary grade weapon?

A knife is a military grade weapon. They carry them. They train to use them. Tell me I'm wrong.

ID: 1330770 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1330771 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:54:19 UTC

Michelle Malkin reported on Fox news last night that in New York state the Dems with their gun control laws do indeed want to take all arms from the citizen. In the law if you have one gun you get one bullet. Indeed a stupid law. While hunting one would need more then one round.

Even so, the report above about the reason for firearms is false from posters here, and a out and out lie. The intent of law is all that is needed for owning a firearm. That intent is tyranny from a standing army within our borders. It is unfortunate and a crime in my thoughts that my link was removed. Because the link gave the reasons for owning a firearm in my country from the mouths of the framers and founders. This is called intent. Of course if socialist, who in their mind want to re-engineer society must interject revisioniest history.



Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1330771 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1330772 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:56:41 UTC - in response to Message 1330758.  

First off what do you think is a miltary grade weapon? And the second is what if my hunting rifle is a civilian version of an AR platform. In my state I can hunt certain game with it. And just so you know im allowed a 5 round magazine when hunting. There is no bayonette lug nor a flash hider and or muzzle brake.......

Haven't you just answered your own question ?

A civilian version and a 5 round magazine. Therefore you already know the difference between military grade and civilian grade. Under the proposed legislation I doubt you have anything to worry about.

I'm not against guns or gun ownership. It's just like all legal issues there are are those in the US that stretch the second amendment to breaking point. When that amendment was written I'm pretty sure the sponsors were not imagining the sort of fire power that's available these days.

BTW. I'm curious. What sort of game do you hunt with that rifle and what range are you shooting at ?

T.A.
ID: 1330772 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1330773 - Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:57:04 UTC - in response to Message 1330770.  

First off what do you think is a miltary grade weapon?

A knife is a military grade weapon. They carry them. They train to use them. Tell me I'm wrong.

Only if it is MILSPEC Gary.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1330773 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 . . . 24 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.