not my words, but i must agree

[Matt_E]

Look up the meaning of "arm" or "arms". I am sure you can handle that.

Armaments

 

Two different things.

[Matt_E]

One more thing, about what you said on Canada...I really don't think that guns are to blame for that situation.

 

I believe one must look at deeper social issues responsible for crime situations than just the availability of potential tools.

[Dru]

Look up the meaning of "arm" or "arms". I am sure you can handle that.

Armaments

 

Two different things.

 

Same thing. You can look it up.

[glassgowkiss]

this conversation reached dead end. the topic wasn't the guns, gun ownership. the topic is that people in the SE and center of the US of A use double standard logic. they complain about taxation in this coutry, yet they pay the least to the system and bennefit the most. they are religious zellots, yet they even don't live what they preach- hence things like divorce rate in those areas is much higher then in states concidered "liberal". they want (supposedly) smaller govenment, yet they voted for the administration that did the biggest hiring since WWII! the budget deficit is staggering, a strategy in a war is not working.... the list goes on.

[TG1]

In fact, why would anyone care whether they get shot at with a gun with or without a pistol grip, or bayonet lug?

 

simple- the length of the weapon and ability to hide. there is a minimum lenght issue.

my point is that i am not agains gun ownership. have a gun, have a hangun if you want. but there is simply not enough safety and not enough enforcement.

your logic is like this- i am responsible, so why do i have to suffer concequences for some dummbshit asshole- right. i get your point. but the other side of the issue is like this. if there is a dangerous section of the road and high rate of the accidents the first thing that will happen is the speed limmit gets lowered. that's called public safety. you can be a race car driver and you can go safely through this section twice the speed limmit, but you still have to obey the rule, right?

you said, gun related crimes are commited by criminals. that's an oxymoron. the fact is that if you commit a crime, using a gun - that makes you a criminal.

canada has higher gun ownership rate then the united states. yet i can walk on the street there without worry. so what is the big deal? you pass a test showing you can handle the gun, the same way you have to pass the test that can show you can operate car or an airplane. tell me what's wrong with that?

 

The meaning of criminals using firearms to commit crimes is based on the fact that these criminals had already been convicted of crimes, preventing them from purchasing firearms in a local sporting goods store like an honest citizen would. In other words, they steel their firearms, or otherwise purchase them on the black market.

 

I'd love to see where you're getting your stats on Canadian gun ownership as compared to the United States. It's quite contradictary to every form of published data available.

 

Your minimum length issue will matter little if shot with a 18" barreled 12 gauge or 28", the end result will be the same.......death. That's the point.

 

Last time I checked, it was much easier to conceal a handgun than a pistol grip, bayonet lugged, extended magazine rifle too!!!! But hey, what do I know.....I'm only a gunsmith and custom rifle builder. Ohh, and did I mention a proud member of the GOP?

[glassgowkiss]

Last time I checked, it was much easier to conceal a handgun than a pistol grip, bayonet lugged, extended magazine rifle too!!!! But hey, what do I know.....I'm only a gunsmith and custom rifle builder. Ohh, and did I mention a proud member of the GOP?

forgot to mention a wanker and dumbass. T-A=0. like i said- wanker

[TG1]

this conversation reached dead end. the topic wasn't the guns, gun ownership. the topic is that people in the SE and center of the US of A use double standard logic. they complain about taxation in this coutry, yet they pay the least to the system and bennefit the most. they are religious zellots, yet they even don't live what they preach- hence things like divorce rate in those areas is much higher then in states concidered "liberal". they want (supposedly) smaller govenment, yet they voted for the administration that did the biggest hiring since WWII! the budget deficit is staggering, a strategy in a war is not working.... the list goes on.

 

Your logic is flawed once again.......

 

If the people who are paying the most taxes are benefiting the least from them, would you explain then the fact that the richest 1% in this country tackle well over the majority of the tax burden. That would be the richest 1% that your purple heart savior was claiming was the only one receiving tax cuts....correct?

Does this mean that the richest 1% is infact entitled to these tax cuts???.....or does it mean that in fact you're really not contributing to the tax base as much as you claim.....be concise here on your position.

 

I suppose welfare is really low in those urban areas that just happened to end up in the blue too?????? Where exactly does the money from welfare come from???? Taxes maybe......From who paying????? Aren't these the same guys who aren't entitled to tax cuts, just because they support your sorry polish ass?

[TG1]

forgot to mention a wanker and dumbass. T-A=0. like i said- wanker

 

Now that was the reply I was waiting on.......out of ammo aren't ya????

 

Come on now.......throw some more profanity out there and see if you can't get your point across.

[glassgowkiss]

tg 1 you are so full of shit that your eyes turn brown from turd overload. to agrgue with you is a complete waste of my time. you can belive what you want. doesn't change the fact that you are an ignorant fuckwad.

Taxes maybe......From who paying????? Aren't these the same guys who aren't entitled to tax cuts, just because they support your sorry polish ass?

ok, so english is not my native language, but you? which grade did stop your education at? first? can you actually write in english. like i said- a wanker

Edited November 16, 2004 by glassgowkiss

[Matt_E]

Look up the meaning of "arm" or "arms". I am sure you can handle that.

Armaments

 

Two different things.

 

Same thing. You can look it up.

 

 

sigh....

 

The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context), but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their indictment.

 

A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court — goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons, but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692 P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981) (billy clubs).

 

With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns (so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment.

 

Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a constitutional right to own machine guns.

 

Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices … which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).)

 

But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment. Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech.

 

Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25 pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol," Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition is plainly unconstitutional.)

 

The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).)

 

But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers one potential line of argument.

 

Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g., suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties. Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core. Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are becoming common in special attack units.

 

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows:

 

"Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body ... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

 

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense.

 

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government

[Matt_E]

One more thing: Switzerland, or even Finland, are prime examples of countries that have "assault weapons" available to the masses (Registered, of course), heck, even fully automatic guns.

 

Crime waves? Naw... How come?

[TG1]

Come on now Asskowits, can't you do better than that?

 

Or have you left to gather your thought and wonder why you're a liberal puke who doesn't belong in this fine country, breathing the same air that the rest of us do?

 

Crawl back under your rock from whence you came credent.

[glassgowkiss]

so one more thing- have you been to switzerland? i have. maybe you didn't notice, that they don't have a regular army- the citizens are responsible for the defese- that would fit a term "militia" every male has a weapon, as well as a uniform and basic miltary equipment. two times a year there is a requirement for them to go through 1 week of miltary excercise. only during that time they are allowed to carry their rifles outside of their homes.

Edited November 16, 2004 by glassgowkiss

[selkirk]

Crawl back under your rock from whence you came credent.

 

Did you mean cretin? If so than you should probably crawl under your own rock or go back to high school for civics and spelling.

[Matt_E]

Yes. Numerous times. I have relatives there, as well.

 

Same applies to Scandinavia, sans the relatives.

[glassgowkiss]

Come on now Asskowits, can't you do better than that?

 

Or have you left to gather your thought and wonder why you're a liberal puke who doesn't belong in this fine country, breathing the same air that the rest of us do?

 

Crawl back under your rock from whence you came credent.

not only a wanker, but a genuine wanker with a short memory:

Now that was the reply I was waiting on.......out of ammo aren't ya????

 

Come on now.......throw some more profanity out there and see if you can't get your point across

 

i don't need to add anymore- you contradicted youself- case closed.

[TG1]

Crawl back under your rock from whence you came credent.

 

Did you mean cretin? If so than you should probably crawl under your own rock or go back to high school for civics and spelling.

 

LOL........Hook.....Line.....& Sinker

 

Sense I's not as edmucated as you other fellars, I tought I'd sea if you cought that.......Good job...that's ten points.

[selkirk]

nice cover...

[TG1]

Well, as ignorant as I appear, you left-wing weanies should be tearing me up on this debate.....Not so ehh?

[selkirk]

left wing weanies huh? Actually have very little interest in gun bans. I think within reason I don't see an issue with ownership. Now background checks, mandatory licensing and training, trigger locks or gun safes, I'm all for those, and haven't heard any arguments against them.

 

Contrary to popular belief, not all liberals are rabid or limp wristed, just like not all gun toting conservatives aren't trying to compensate

[glassgowkiss]

Well, as ignorant as I appear, you left-wing weanies should be tearing me up on this debate.....Not so ehh?

why bother, you are doing just fine. i mean it's hard to argue with someone who's IQ is 80, right? you are just a prime specimen of republican supporter- dumb, uneducated and without answers. keep going- you are doing a fine job of making me lough and a complete ass out of yourself

[TG1]

Well, as ignorant as I appear, you left-wing weanies should be tearing me up on this debate.....Not so ehh?

why bother, you are doing just fine. i mean it's hard to argue with someone who's IQ is 80, right? you are just a prime specimen of republican supporter- dumb, uneducated and without answers. keep going- you are doing a fine job of making me lough and a complete ass out of yourself

 

If that were the case, based upon unbias statistics, even those that are taught in a democratic controlled education system, the majority of the voters that vote Democrap are not only uneducated, but also happen to be a large number of minorities. You surely wouldn't be refering to me, so it must be that ugly bastard you have to stare at in the mirror every morning.

 

Where'd you say you were from Boy???? Poland

 

This door is just way too open for you to start talking about education and "prime specimens".

[glassgowkiss]

being polish doesn't make me a minority. the minority you reffer to is race, right? so to let you know you dumbshit poland isn't located in africa or asia or even south america, but in the center of europe, hence it is called central european coutry. so how does it make me a minority? even more, so called minorities in poland are something like 0.5% (mostly people who married polish citizens), hence my skin is of that white color. so what makes me a minority? so your point was......aaaa, not only fucking dumb, but a racist pig? shut the fuck up you cunt

[TG1]

left wing weanies huh? Actually have very little interest in gun bans. I think within reason I don't see an issue with ownership. Now background checks, mandatory licensing and training, trigger locks or gun safes, I'm all for those, and haven't heard any arguments against them.

 

Contrary to popular belief, not all liberals are rabid or limp wristed, just like not all gun toting conservatives aren't trying to compensate

 

If you carry a concealed handgun, you're required in every state that has a "shall issue" program that you must have completed a basic pistol course and be trained in the proper safe-handling techniques of that handgun.

If you're under 18 in most states, you're required to take a hunters safety course to ensure that you can handle the firearm responsibly. These items are already in place and work quite well.

 

As far as locks on your guns......Should the time ever arise that your loved ones are confronted by an intruder in your home, just don't forget where you left your keys to that precious trigger lock.

Something else to note is the fact that no handgun or rifle is sold in this country new without a trigger lock included in the package. I have quite a collection that I use for securing my luggage when I travel by airplane.

They seem to work best for that application.

 

The last thing I need is some politician telling me that I must use one, just because it's the politically correct thing to do, all the while disregarding the fact that it's endangering my families safety. That's laws that this country doesn't need.

[TG1]

being polish doesn't make me a minority. the minority you reffer to is race, right? so to let you know you dumbshit poland isn't located in africa or asia or even south america, but in the center of europe, hence it is called central european coutry. so how does it make me a minority? even more, so called minorities in poland are something like 0.5% (mostly people who married polish citizens), hence my skin is of that white color. so what makes me a minority? so your point was......aaaa, not only fucking dumb, but a racist pig? shut the fuck up you cunt

 

 

You don't have one arm do ya?????

 

You're not sitting in a tree are ya??