Dru Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Hey, didn't this Hitler feller disarm the populace right after gaining power? He was a vegetarian too, and a decorated war veteran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TG1 Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 "Well regulated" has nothing to do with regulating which firearm is being used, it's means giving the people the ability to first assemble and voice their opinion of goverment(see the 1st amendment), then organizing together(see 1st amendment again) to form an able-bodied group of soldiers comprised of ordinary men to defend your rights as citizens with whatever available weapons that they would have at their disposal. For those of you have obviously limited experience in firearms as they pertain to "assault weapons", let me educate you just a little. First, your typical "assault weapon" is by most standards very crudely assembled out of sub-standard materials, with less than desirable engineering to produce substandard results in terms of accuracy. Most assault rifles are lucky to hold 5-10" groups at 100 yards from a benchrest position. Malfunctions are the norm during rapid fire, and the sighting systems are among the worst available. Big Game hunting rifles, varmint rifles, etc. are capable of shooting groups of as a little as .100" groups at the same range, utilizing on the average, much more powerful cartridges. Having to choose between the two as to which one I'd rather defend myself with, I'd opt for the hunting rifle hands down. I don't own an assault weapon as the politicians have described them, but I own many of the other "hunting rifles". If I choose to buy an assault rifle, that's my choice, and there's not enough bleeding-heart liberals on this site or any other to sway my way of thinking. When you idiots start realizing that a firearm is nothing more than an inanimate object, just like a car, plane, and other forms of dangerous transportation, which seems to continually kill far more people than guns every year, only then will you figure out how to deal with the problems this country has. Step away from your tunnel vision on this issue and start understanding why we are in the predictment that were in. It's called a moral and social decline as a whole in this country, most of which can be contributed to some of the bright scholars that I've heard spewing shit on this thread, and people just like you. You fellas ever wonder why it is that you have such a hard time winning this debate on these issues???? Could it be that perhaps you are standing on the wrong side of common sense, the same common sense that this country was founded on, that you can't seem to interpret correctly, or are completely unwilling to. Now flame away you limpwristed, crybaby, Kerry-shoulda-won, I'm moving to Canada rejects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 What part of NUCLEAR ARMS isn't Arms? It would behoove you to find out what "Arms" means in the context of the second amendment. Amendment II 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. so what part of well regulated militia are you? from a historical context that would be police, national guard and all the branches of military. it doesn't say private citizens, right? it says well regulated militia. you know what militia is? tha fact of the matter is you don't know anything about history, even the history of your own country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Anyways technology evolves. Lasers, Tasers, crowd control microwaves, Ricin, depleted uranium bullets, rabid bats (bioweapon used by US against Japan with limited success) -none were considered by writers of constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 What part of "well-regulated" did you sleep through? I am not arguing that point right now (Though I could, if you'd like me to). What part of "Look up what "arms" means" did you sleep through? the point is you moron, hat you never had right in the first place, since you are not a part of "well regulated militia"- you just don't get it. point #2 is that you still can go to your local wall mart and purchase 12 gaugage shotgun on the spot. all you need is your driver licence. you do't even have to be a resinent of this country. there are no limmits on amo purchases either. as the matter of fact your local wallmart was selling hollow point bullets till after columbine. and explain to me why do you need to purchase teflon coated bullets? the only desingn of this type of ammo is to go throgh cavalar vest. and since we are on the subject maybe you can clarify one more fact for us. why every police union was supporting assult weapon ban? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TG1 Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 What part of NUCLEAR ARMS isn't Arms? It would behoove you to find out what "Arms" means in the context of the second amendment. Amendment II 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. so what part of well regulated militia are you? from a historical context that would be police, national guard and all the branches of military. it doesn't say private citizens, right? it says well regulated militia. you know what militia is? tha fact of the matter is you don't know anything about history, even the history of your own country. You are the one that needs the history lesson During our Revolutionary War we had a standing army, as well as a Milita.......It was not the same thing. The milita was comprised of ordinary men who operated much differently than the normal military. The National Guard is controlled by the goverment, so in essence by your way of thinking, the National Guard and our other Branches of the military are the only ones entitled to carry firearms correct???? I believe that would be like the Wolves tending to the Sheep. Welcome to the flock dumbass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConradCA Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 (edited) Just more lies by the lying losers of the left. You don't believe in democracy ? I guess that you think that because you are so much better than everyone else that your candidates should win every election. It does not matter that your candidate and party leaders lied just about every time they opened their mouths. After all your great leader/perjurer Clinton lied and you still worship the ground he walks on. Futher more, you were backed by the great man and paragone of virtue Mikey "Gobbles" Moore. His inspiring movie Farenhite 9/11 showed the truth about President Bush! How could you have lost ? It must have been cheating! The Republicans lied and claimed "that the Democrats were trying prevent blacks from voting. Just like they did in the South!" It is no wonder that you lost. Conrad Edited November 16, 2004 by ConradCA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 (edited) You are the one that needs the history lesson During our Revolutionary War we had a standing army, as well as a Milita.......It was not the same thing. The milita was comprised of ordinary men who operated much differently than the normal military. they operated with military. this concept was started by Pulaski (do you know who he is?) The National Guard is controlled by the goverment, so in essence by your way of thinking, the National Guard and our other Branches of the military are the only ones entitled to carry firearms correct???? I believe that would be like the Wolves tending to the Sheep. Welcome to the flock dumbass. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011010-4.html - educate yoursef moron one more link for you http://www.loc.gov/bicentennial/propage/NY/ny-30_h_quinn2.html Edited November 16, 2004 by glassgowkiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 tg and conrad, you are lame spewing loosers. if you like guns so much, why don't you join the army or marines and go to iraq or afganistan? Talk - Action = ZILCH. fuck you and fuck off. go away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Hey there was this guy named Hitler or something. Didn't he like take away all the people's guns and stuff when he git into power? Like all of them? Is this true? I heard this thing once, but I just don't know for sure. Thanks for your erudite answers, in advance I thank you. Sincerely, Sexual (Mmmmmmmm!) chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 (edited) Hey there was this guy named Hitler or something. Didn't he like take away all the people's guns and stuff when he git into power? Like all of them? Is this true? I heard this thing once, but I just don't know for sure. Thanks for your erudite answers, in advance I thank you. Sincerely, Sexual (Mmmmmmmm!) chocolate don't know where did this come from. he won the elections: Hitler's Rise to Power Once released from prison, Hitler decided to seize power constitutionally rather than by force of arms. Using demagogic oratory, Hitler spoke to scores of mass audiences, calling for the German people to resist the yoke of Jews and Communists, and to create a new empire which would rule the world for 1,000 years. Hitler's Nazi party captured 18% of the popular vote in the 1930 elections. In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. A political deal was made to make Hitler chancellor in exchange for his political support. He was appointed to that office in January 1933. Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus successor. With an improving economy, Hitler claimed credit and consolidated his position as a dictator, having succeeded in eliminating challenges from other political parties and government institutions. The German industrial machine was built up in preparation for war. By 1937, he was comfortable enough to put his master plan, as outlined in Mein Kampf, into effect. Calling his top military aides together at the "FÅhrer Conference" in November 1937, he outlined his plans for world domination. Those who objected to the plan were dismissed here is a link:http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html another link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler Edited November 16, 2004 by glassgowkiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_E Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Hey, didn't this Hitler feller disarm the populace right after gaining power? Not quite...the gun ban for German citizens had been put in place by the winning forces of WW1, through enforcement of the Treaty Of Versailles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 tg and conrad, you are lame spewing loosers. if you like guns so much, why don't you join the army or marines and go to iraq or afganistan? This thread was so stupid from the first post that I really wanted to ignore it. I mean, a left-leaning guy from eastern Europe posts the rant of an ignoramus who confuses practically all the states except those in New England and the PNW for "the South." Then proceeds to tell us what's wrong with the country. I mean, who's looking ignorant here? CrazyPolishBob, your post above just begs the reply "If you hate the laws here in this country of which you are not native, then why did you come...just to vent your spleen?" Give it up. Don't tell me about the fucking South. Don't give me a history lesson. Don't try to tell me what rights I should or shouldn't have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_E Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 You don't want to get into "well-regulated" because you'd have to somehow blather your way through a spurious justification of how a restriction on assault weapons is not regulation. So instead you pretend there is something deficient in my definition of arms because you can't find anything specific. You brought up context and now it's biting you in the . Err....no. I was bringing up "arms" because someone here thought it included bombs, etc....now, if you'd like me to get into the whole militia deal, fine. Gimme some time, though. I am at work, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 (edited) tg and conrad, you are lame spewing loosers. if you like guns so much, why don't you join the army or marines and go to iraq or afganistan? This thread was so stupid from the first post that I really wanted to ignore it. I mean, a left-leaning guy from eastern Europe posts the rant of an ignoramus who confuses practically all the states except those in New England and the PNW for "the South." Then proceeds to tell us what's wrong with the country. I mean, who's looking ignorant here? CrazyPolishBob, your post above just begs the reply "If you hate the laws here in this country of which you are not native, then why did you come...just to vent your spleen?" Give it up. Don't tell me about the fucking South. Don't give me a history lesson. Don't try to tell me what rights I should or shouldn't have. so uif you don't like what i have to say don't read it- simple- fuck off. second to acuse me of being left leaning is stupid, as you don't know anything about my past. and since i reside in this coutry and i am forced to pay taxes the same as every one alse i have the same right to voice my opinion. and one more thing- if it wasn't for the divission of europe by US and british government in Yalta in 1941 millions of people like myself would not have to escape in the first place, so shut the fuck up you dickwad. i dion choose to meve here, i was forced to. i was forced because the president of the US decided that coutry like poland will be sold to the soviet union. you really pissed me off you cock sucking fuckwad. Edited November 16, 2004 by glassgowkiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 tg and conrad, you are lame spewing loosers. if you like guns so much, why don't you join the army or marines and go to iraq or afganistan? This thread was so stupid from the first post that I really wanted to ignore it. I mean, a left-leaning guy from eastern Europe posts the rant of an ignoramus who confuses practically all the states except those in New England and the PNW for "the South." Then proceeds to tell us what's wrong with the country. I mean, who's looking ignorant here? CrazyPolishBob, your post above just begs the reply "If you hate the laws here in this country of which you are not native, then why did you come...just to vent your spleen?" Give it up. Don't tell me about the fucking South. Don't give me a history lesson. Don't try to tell me what rights I should or shouldn't have. Funny but I was thinking almost the same thing. I guess that's what happens when you have the same birthday...esp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 oops - now he's gonna yell at me too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_E Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 the point is you moron, hat you never had right in the first place, since you are not a part of "well regulated militia"- you just don't get it. Your point must be pretty weak to have to lace it with personal insults. There are plenty of good books/opinion pieces written on the meaning of militia, but I doubt anything could really change your mind. What harm am I doing to you, as a legal firearms owner? No one's been able to answer that so far. point #2 is that you still can go to your local wall mart and purchase 12 gaugage shotgun on the spot. all you need is your driver licence. Correct. And you need to subject to a federal background check. Also, the firearm serial number is tied to you. What's the problem? you do't even have to be a resinent of this country. Bullshit. Where do you get that information? Most any state has laws in place against exactly that, ESPECIALLY Washington State. there are no limmits on amo purchases either. Why would there be? I load my own...in fact, I load thousands of 9mm Handgun ammo at a time. Does that concern you? as the matter of fact your local wallmart was selling hollow point bullets till after columbine. And just why is that a problem? Do they kill people, as if by magic, by themselves? Or is there mayhaps still a human factor? Are we shunting responsibility away from ourselves by trying to outlaw devices? If you really believe Hollow Points are somehow more deadly than FMJs, or whatever else, you are mistaken. and explain to me why do you need to purchase teflon coated bullets? the only desingn of this type of ammo is to go throgh cavalar vest. ugh. More uneducated nonsense. Teflon coated bullets??? Where do you get this information? You can buy bullets, even loaded ammo, with Molybdenum coat, or derivatives. The purpose is to reduce barrel friction and barrel fouling. Most any standard rifle cartridge will penetrate most any "bullet-Proof" vest out there. What kind of scare tactic are you trying to run? and since we are on the subject maybe you can clarify one more fact for us. why every police union was supporting assult weapon ban? There were a couple, true. I can't answer the question, because I don't know. In fact, I am a bit confused about this issue...after all the Assault Weapons ban has never been shown to have any appreciable affect on crime. So why would a police union care? In fact, why would anyone care whether they get shot at with a gun with or without a pistol grip, or bayonet lug? The crux of the matter is that you fellas seem to be content with trying to combat illegal ownership and use of firearms by restricting legal ownership and use of the same. A bit of a dis-congruent approach, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I was bringing up "arms" because someone here thought it included bombs, etc.... So prove it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_E Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Look up the meaning of "arm" or "arms". I am sure you can handle that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted November 16, 2004 Author Share Posted November 16, 2004 (edited) 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? Edited November 16, 2004 by glassgowkiss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConradCA Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 (edited) Amendment II 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. so what part of well regulated militia are you? from a historical context that would be police, national guard and all the branches of military. it doesn't say private citizens, right? it says well regulated militia. you know what militia is? tha fact of the matter is you don't know anything about history, even the history of your own country. At they time the 2nd ammendment was written the main defense force in the USA was the militia. This consisted of just about every adult male who could afford to equip themselves with weapons. They trained and drilled periodically and this training included shooting their weapons. When an enemy attacked our country the government called up the militia to defend our country. If you doubt this then check out the war of 1812. The people need to "keep and bear arms" because they had to be ready to fight and that meant they needed to know how to shoot their weapons. This had nothing to do with a standing army or police, national guard and all the branches of military. Further more, it says in plain english that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Even if the term militia refers to "police, national guard and all the branches of military" the fact that the people have the right to keep and bear arms is still true. Liberals just want to prevent honest people from owning guns because they are facists. They feel that they are better than everyone else and have the right to manage everyone's life. It is intellectually dishonest to interpret the 2nd ammendment to say that the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms. If you want to change the 2nd ammendment then be honest about it. The honest way to change the constitution is to ammend it. If you can do this to the 2nd ammendment then what is to prevent someone else from doing the same to the other ammendments. I am sure that the 1st ammendment could be interpreted to allow the govenment to establish an official religion of the USA and prevent people from critizing the government. Be careful of what you wish for! You might not like the results. Conrad Edited November 17, 2004 by ConradCA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Look up the meaning of "arm" or "arms". I am sure you can handle that. Armaments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 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? I'll second that. No need to ban gun ownership, but we should at least require training, licensing, and a certain level of safety. Mandatory training and licensing before you can purchase and operate a deadly weapon (i.e. cars, private airplanes, motorcycles, semi trucks, forklifts, guns). Require either gun safes or trigger locks (no different than a set of keys for the car...). though insurance might be a step too far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_E Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I understand the concern. I believe what you are trying to achieve is the elimination of those certain types/models of guns through restricting/eliminating the sale of them altogether, hoping that this stoppage of supply will eventually trickle down to the black market. Correct? I simply do not think that would happen, not for decades, anyhow. Whether those guns are available legally or not, those that would commit crimes with them do not acquire them through the channels you would seek to restrict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.