Obama has stimulated the economy

[NSPeon]

Originally Posted by railroad76

Sorry, you still haven't sold me. By you bring up McVey, I think that is what most people are scared of. I don't want some crazy mfer going around thinking he is some hero and killing a bunch of innocent people.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 without ever firing a shot. Guns played no part in his attack. Simple Ammonia Nitrate Fertilizer and Diesel Fuel.

So by most politicians logic, we should ban ALL fertilizers, because they serve no purpose other than bomb making.

Doesn't make much sense when you think of it, does it?

Originally Posted by railroad76

Hunting or handguns are one thing. But when some nut shoots up a mall then he is infringing on my constitutional right to "life". Drunk driving is already against the law.

When some nut shoots up a mall, what would you rather hope happens:
A. Someone is able to get a call out to 911 and hopefully the Police get there before he kills twenty people, since there are no armed citizens, or:

B. The possibility of an armed, law abiding citizen that could be able to act quickly and dispatch the threat, perhaps saving those twenty lives?

And yes, drunk driving is against the law, so is using a firearm in the commission of a felony, but that doesn't seem to bother people who are intent on breaking the law. What good would more laws do, if criminals don't follow the ones in place already?

Originally Posted by railroad76

I really don't think anyone is against normal hand guns and hunting stuff. Is there another country in world more free with their gun laws?

There are quite a few people against normal hand guns and hunting stuff, Obama, Holder, Clinton and Pelosi, just to name a few.

If you don't believe me, read the multiple threads about the proposed "assault" weapons ban. Since you admittedly don't know a lot about guns, if there is any part of the proposal you don't understand, I am sure there are plenty of people here who would happily help you to understand the difference between reality and the political ignorance that is running rampant in the language of this bill.

[railroad76]

Originally Posted by throttle

Using the logic of "they didn't mean it when they wrote that" can be used a 100 different ways.

How they hell can you tell me that the founding fathers had any idea that these types of guns would be invented in the future? Again, I'm not saying I'm for the banning of guns but, I do think that there has to be a line drawn. You said that there is a very clear line drawn. What is it and who decided it? Sorry, this is clearly not my topic and I'm just asking questions. I really don't think Obama is trying to take away the guns that most people consider normal guns.

[railroad76]

Originally Posted by NSPeon

When some nut shoots up a mall, what would you rather hope happens:
A. Someone is able to get a call out to 911 and hopefully the Police get there before he kills twenty people, since there are no armed citizens, or:

B. The possibility of an armed, law abiding citizen that could be able to act quickly and dispatch the threat, perhaps saving those twenty lives?

There are quite a few people against normal hand guns and hunting stuff, Obama, Holder, Clinton and Pelosi, just to name a few.

If you don't believe me, read the multiple threads about the proposed "assault" weapons ban. Since you admittedly don't know a lot about guns, if there is any part of the proposal you don't understand, I am sure there are plenty of people here who would happily help you to understand the difference between reality and the political ignorance that is running rampant in the language of this bill.

I will look over it.

[TFB]

The bigger question that needs to be understood here is what was the framers intent with the 2nd amendment? Once you understand that you will have a better grasp of why the desire to take away this right is crucial to the gun grabbers.

[throttle]

Originally Posted by railroad76

How they hell can you tell me that the founding fathers had any idea that these types of guns would be invented in the future? Again, I'm not saying I'm for the banning of guns but, I do think that there has to be a line drawn. You said that there is a very clear line drawn. What is it and who decided it? Sorry, this is clearly not my topic and I'm just asking questions. I really don't think Obama is trying to take away the guns that most people consider normal guns.

Simple enough.
The line is the AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Being able to pull and hold the trigger down. This is a MACHINE GUN if you will. A average joe and for the most part 99.5% of American's can't own or even think about purchasing this type of gun.

A Semi-Automatic weapon is allowable as the law stands, it is a gun you pull the trigger and it fires until you spend all the ammo. It won't just continue to fire, you must pull the trigger. In most cases this is 80% of the handguns and shotguns on the market excluding single shots. (even a double barrel shotgun is "Semi-Automatic".

The problem is the criminal element. They will get whatever weapon they want from whatever means they need. No matter of gun laws.
So say we ban all weapons, the only people hurt by this are hunters and legal gun owners and you have criminals with weapons running about.

There is plenty of history to speak of liberal fear mongering about gun ownership, just google it and see.

I know many on this board are CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon). I know in my state over 1/4 of the population is a CCW. Ya, think about it. There is a pretty good chance the state you are in also has a higher number. Some states like Texas, Kentucky and Indiana have pretty liberal gun laws (life permits or no permit required) and many people there just carry. And you never know it and never hear about it.
I have a gun on my all the time minus sleep and work. You would never know it either!

[Unprotected]

Originally Posted by railroad76

So semi/fully, how does one determine which is which?

SA=one round fired per one pull of the trigger.
FA=more than one round per one pull of the trigger.

Originally Posted by railroad76

As far as the 2nd Amendment, at that time, they we still using gunpowder and muskettes right? I don't think they had an idea of what the future had in store.

What difference does that make? Computers didn't exist when the First Amendment was ratified.

One of the reasons that the BoR is so broadly written is precisely to make room for technology and for the future. Rights are not temporal. They are timeless. That is why they are rights, and not privileges.

Originally Posted by railroad76

I'm sure they didn't plan on drive-by's and postal workers. I'm all for rights to own a gun.

I'm sure they didn't plan on kiddie porn when they guaranteed the freedom of the press.

Simply because liberty may be abused by some is no reason to restrict everyone's liberty.

Originally Posted by railroad76

But where would you guys think we should draw the line? Should there be a line? I'm sure someone thinks it's within their rights to own a rocketlauncher and a tank.

Every one of the men who wrote the Second Amendment were clear: the people should always be as well armed as the government.

You think the government is so responsible and honorable that it, and it alone, should have armor? Frankly, I would trust a conglomeration of my neighbors more than the government.

Originally Posted by railroad76

Sorry, you still haven't sold me. By you bring up McVey, I think that is what most people are scared of.

Jeez, man. McVeigh used friggin' fertilizer and diesel fuel. He didn't fire a single shot.

Originally Posted by railroad76

It seems to me that anyone looking to fire that many rounds per minute is looking for trouble.

Or looking to end trouble.

Originally Posted by railroad76

But when some nut shoots up a mall then he is infringing on my constitutional right to "life".

Then shoot back!

Ever notice how these cowards never open fire at a police station or at a gun range? They always choose places where people are generally disarmed. This is the fallacy of "gun free zones."

Originally Posted by railroad76

How they hell can you tell me that the founding fathers had any idea that these types of guns would be invented in the future?

They didn't. That's why they didn't say "the keeping and bearing of muskets, dirks, truncheons, and broad swords shall not be infringed." They knew technology would advance, and they knew that government would always be evil.

Originally Posted by railroad76

I really don't think Obama is trying to take away the guns that most people consider normal guns.

Obama, like so many Believers, is completely ignorant of firearms. What he and those like him consider to be "abnormal" are mundane to me. I have a small arsenal. Some people would be shocked. Others wouldn't bat an eye.

Perhaps we should just have a constitutional amendment that leaves the petty personal opinions out of things. We could just simply guarantee the right of the people to be as well armed as the government.

[throttle]

--------

[BadOrderKing]

John Wilkes Booth used a powder derringer
Lee Harvey used a bolt action
John Hinkley Jr. used a .22 revolver
Mark David Chapman used a .38 revolver


Pearl MS; 1997
Luke woodham kills his mother with a kitchen knife then kills three at his highschool with a 30-30 rifle.
His principle, who ignored the law, held woodham at gunpoint until the police arrived.

1. This principle saved the lives of unknown amounts of people by retrieving his personal firearm from his vehicle. Thanks to MS law he was allowed to cary in his vehicle.

2. In some states, this principle would have been sentenced in the same courtroom as woodham received his three life sentences.

Originally Posted by Unprotected

SA=one round fired per one pull of the trigger.
FA=more than one round per one pull of the trigger.



What difference does that make? Computers didn't exist when the First Amendment was ratified.

One of the reasons that the BoR is so broadly written is precisely to make room for technology and for the future. Rights are not temporal. They are timeless. That is why they are rights, and not privileges.



I'm sure they didn't plan on kiddie porn when they guaranteed the freedom of the press.

Simply because liberty may be abused by some is no reason to restrict everyone's liberty.




Every one of the men who wrote the Second Amendment were clear: the people should always be as well armed as the government.

You think the government is so responsible and honorable that it, and it alone, should have armor? Frankly, I would trust a conglomeration of my neighbors more than the government.



Jeez, man. McVeigh used friggin' fertilizer and diesel fuel. He didn't fire a single shot.



Or looking to end trouble.





Then shoot back!

Ever notice how these cowards never open fire at a police station or at a gun range? They always choose places where people are generally disarmed. This is the fallacy of "gun free zones."




They didn't. That's why they didn't say "the keeping and bearing of muskets, dirks, truncheons, and broad swords shall not be infringed." They knew technology would advance, and they knew that government would always be evil.



Obama, like so many Believers, is completely ignorant of firearms. What he and those like him consider to be "abnormal" are mundane to me. I have a small arsenal. Some people would be shocked. Others wouldn't bat an eye.

Perhaps we should just have a constitutional amendment that leaves the petty personal opinions out of things. We could just simply guarantee the right of the people to be as well armed as the government.

[ghostrider]

Originally Posted by throttle

Simple enough.

I have a gun on my all the time minus sleep and work. You would never know it either!

LOL well I don't have one at work but there is one extremely close to the wife and I when we sleep.

[jetboater]

Originally Posted by ghostrider

LOL well I don't have one at work but there is one extremely close to the wife and I when we sleep.

amen to that....