Proud gun owners

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Please vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Please vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

Voted "YES"

[44INAROW]

97% yes
2 % no


;)

[BullsFan]

Isn't that more just a true/false thing than a statement about your feelings as a gun owner? It looks to me like they're just trying to see if the general public knows what the Second Amendment is than asking people whether or not they support it.

[STANG RED]

They can have my gun.
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
When they pry it from my cold dead hand!:mad:

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Isn't that more just a true/false thing than a statement about your feelings as a gun owner? It looks to me like they're just trying to see if the general public knows what the Second Amendment is than asking people whether or not they support it.

I'm not sure what the difference is.:thinking:

[Bullaholic]

Always good to see a thread supporting an endangered species....:D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Second Amendment:

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.

That is what it says, verbatim. When you have to interpret the Constitution, isn't that Judicial Activism?

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Isn't that more just a true/false thing than a statement about your feelings as a gun owner? It looks to me like they're just trying to see if the general public knows what the Second Amendment is than asking people whether or not they support it.

Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

The first step to a dictatorship besides the blind electing a complete idiot is the disarming of its citizens.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

The first step to a dictatorship besides the blind electing a complete idiot is the disarming of its citizens.

That doesn't mean that he's going to try to take guns away from the individuals. Consider the fact that there are no telling how many thousands of people who own guns that the government doesn't even know about. Then consider that they are not going to turn those guns in. These people are probably not criminals in the very least, but this will make them into criminals. Obama knows this, so does every politician regardless of political affiliation, and none are going to risk political suicide to take away guns from the ordinary citizen, at least not the ones who are sound mentally and don't have criminal records. Common sense should tell you that much.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

The first step to a dictatorship besides the blind electing a complete idiot is the disarming of its citizens.

And you want to talk about dicatorships, look back at Prescott Bush, father of George H.W. Bush, and remember that he wanted to overthrow the government and implement a dictator. He was elected as a Senator ten or so years later.

[PPSTATEBOUND]

As of now the administrtion is putting severe cutbacks on the number of firing pins being produced. No firing pin no boom, makes guns worthless.....I say we go buy Wal-mart out as I witnessed a 60 something year old doing this weekend.:clap:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
As of now the administrtion is putting severe cutbacks on the number of firing pins being produced. No firing pin no boom, makes guns worthless.....I say we go buy Wal-mart out as I witnessed a 60 something year old doing this weekend.:clap:

I don't see anything wrong with that. I guess because that just makes guns a harder commodity to come by, thus making it much more difficult for the people who shouldn't own or possess a firearm to get one. :thinking: Common sense once again.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
That doesn't mean that he's going to try to take guns away from the individuals. Consider the fact that there are no telling how many thousands of people who own guns that the government doesn't even know about. Then consider that they are not going to turn those guns in. These people are probably not criminals in the very least, but this will make them into criminals. Obama knows this, so does every politician regardless of political affiliation, and none are going to risk political suicide to take away guns from the ordinary citizen, at least not the ones who are sound mentally and don't have criminal records. Common sense should tell you that much.

They have already passed tons of legislation that the vast majority of Americans are against. And yes it may be political suicide, but that doesnt seem to bother them. So dont be so sure we wont see them continue to overreach in an attempt to satisfy the rest of their political agenda. Common sense went out the window many years ago in the federal government, and is obviously quickly being lost everywhere else. Common sense should have told us all this political environment we have today in this country would never be allowed to come to pass. But look at what we have. Common sense??? Hah, surely you jest!

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I don't see anything wrong with that. I guess because that just makes guns a harder commodity to come by, thus making it much more difficult for the people who shouldn't own or possess a firearm to get one. :thinking: Common sense once again.
If someone isn't supposed to have a gun then they are just gonna buy illegally anyways. So it really wouldn't matter. Common sense once again

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
And you want to talk about dicatorships, look back at Prescott Bush, father of George H.W. Bush, and remember that he wanted to overthrow the government and implement a dictator. He was elected as a Senator ten or so years later.

Its not about the past but the FUTURE of this great nation Big Blue.

[Old Tiger]

Can someone explain why normal everday citizens need AR's, or AK-47's?

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
Can someone explain why normal everday citizens need AR's, or AK-47's?
they are bad ass

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by STANG RED
They have already passed tons of legislation that the vast majority of Americans are against. And yes it may be political suicide, but that doesnt seem to bother them. So dont be so sure we wont see them continue to overreach in an attempt to satisfy the rest of their political agenda. Common sense went out the window many years ago in the federal government, and is obviously quickly being lost everywhere else. Common sense should have told us all this political environment we have today in this country would never be allowed to come to pass. But look at what we have. Common sense??? Hah, surely you jest!

Actually, common sense would have told us just that. Looking at the past economic practices and the political thoughts an ideologies of the GOP, common sense would have told you that. But apparently common sense doesn't exist for some people. The only reason we are in the situation that we are in now is because of bad policy passed by George W. Bush. We were sitting in a great spot when Clinton was President, but after he left his personal transgressions against his wife were used against him to smear his policies. Look back at the Great Depression, it was caused by the same policies that Republicans are still promoting. It took a toppling of our entire economic infrastructure for our country to change their line of thought. It took great despair. The same thing happened when Obama was elected, but not on such a large scale. History has a way of repeating itself it seems. I guess that common sense went out the window. The economic policies of Reagan and H.W. Bush didn't work, but Clinton's did, and then we elect Bush Jr. and his don't work. If you want to talk about common sense, it's apparent that most Americans simply don't have any.


Originally posted by Emerson1
If someone isn't supposed to have a gun then they are just gonna buy illegally anyways. So it really wouldn't matter. Common sense once again

No kidding? I would have NEVER thought of that. Apparently you lacked the ability to see the point in my statement: less supply, less availability. I don't think I need to extend on that, either you have the common sense to understand that principle or you don't.


Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Its not about the past but the FUTURE of this great nation Big Blue.


For us to have a future we have to look at our past and learn from our failures and embrace our success to move forward. Past experiences build our ability to positively impact the future. You can't brush things like what Prescott Bush did under the rug and act like they're nothing to worry about, especially considering how much that the economic policies of George W. and H.W. reflect on the beliefs of Prescott.

[waterboy]

:wave:

All gun legislation will do is make the ordinary, normally law-abiding citizen a criminal if they don't act like sheeple and buckle under to the government's regime and their insecure whims. I know I will never give my guns away........:cool: Unarm the people and the government will control them. Do we really want that?:thinking:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by waterboy
:wave:

All gun legislation will do is make the ordinary, normally law-abiding citizen a criminal if they don't act like sheeple and buckle under to the government's regime and their insecure whims. I know I will never give my guns away........:cool: Unarm the people and the government will control them. Do we really want that?:thinking:

But that's not going to happen. Scare tactics on Fox News aren't what is actually going on. Wake up America.

[SintonPirateFan]

i was here. with all my guns. :wave:

[BaseballUmp]

Well I don't seeing this lasting much longer, so i was here

[SintonPirateFan]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
i was here. with all my guns. :wave:



also, since when has "common sense" been associated with this administration?

[waterboy]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
But that's not going to happen. Scare tactics on Fox News aren't what is actually going on. Wake up America.
I am wide awake, thank you. Infringing on our rights, regardless of how trivial some think they are, is a progressive way of controlling the people. Our forefathers knew that this day would happen, which is why they included it in our Bill of Rights to begin with. Vigilance is a virtue, and giving up rights is an option. I believe I'll remain vigilant, and my option is to not give up that right. :D

BTW.........:wave:

[Pick6]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
But that's not going to happen. Scare tactics on Fox News aren't what is actually going on. Wake up America.

Why don't you try blaming something besides Fox News. Everytime you throw that out there your argument loses credibility.

[Bullaholic]

I have never really understood the gun ownership debate. We have laws dealing with the illegal use of guns, and the ownership of certain kinds of guns. Why should we go further than that? I do think that owners of weapons that are classed as combat or assault weapons should have to register those weapons and pass some type of valid background check plus strictly record the sale or transfer of ownership of such weapons.
We have an enforcement problem---not an ownership problem.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Pick6
Why don't you try blaming something besides Fox News. Everytime you throw that out there your argument loses credibility.

Because he's been drinking his cool aide from the cup of Keith Olberman and rest of the ultra liberal media ideologs. Cant you tell?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by waterboy
I am wide awake, thank you. Infringing on our rights, regardless of how trivial some think they are, is a progressive way of controlling the people. Our forefathers knew that this day would happen, which is why they included it in our Bill of Rights to begin with. Vigilance is a virtue, and giving up rights is an option. I believe I'll remain vigilant, and my option is to not give up that right. :D

BTW.........:wave:

They has been no infringement upon our rights, and if you read what the Second Amendment says verbatim you would understand what they were trying to protect. But instead you want to try to interpret it to fit your own ideals. You're not going to have to give up any rights, or your guns, that's the point. But go ahead and believe what the media tells you. Republicans love to tell everyone that Democrats want to take our guns and promise to end abortion, neither of which are true. Keep following the herd and believing everything you hear.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pick6
Why don't you try blaming something besides Fox News. Everytime you throw that out there your argument loses credibility.

Actually, it only loses credibility because people are in denial about watching it. It is a neo-con media outlet, but it's not the only one, it's simply the largest and the beacon for other neo-con media outlets to follow.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by STANG RED
Because he's been drinking his cool aide from the cup of Keith Olberman and rest of the ultra liberal media ideologs. Cant you tell?

Who the hell is Keith Olberman?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
I have never really understood the gun ownership debate. We have laws dealing with the illegal use of guns, and the ownership of certain kinds of guns. Why should we go further than that? I do think that owners of weapons that are classed as combat or assault weapons should have to register those weapons and pass some type of valid background check plus strictly record the sale or transfer of ownership of such weapons.
We have an enforcement problem---not an ownership problem.

I agree with this.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by MUSTANG69
I'm not sure what the difference is.:thinking:

Everyone is responding like it's a poll about how you feel about guns/gun ownership/gun control/etc. Like voting yes is some kind of statement about how you feel about guns. But in reality it's more like a poll to see how well-informed Americans are--do you know what the Second Amendment is, not how do you feel about it.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
Can someone explain why normal everday citizens need AR's, or AK-47's?

I've been asking that for years.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
I do think that owners of weapons that are classed as combat or assault weapons should have to register those weapons and pass some type of valid background check plus strictly record the sale or transfer of ownership of such weapons.
We have an enforcement problem---not an ownership problem.

And therein lies the problem.....who "classifies" a gun as a combat or assault weapon????

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Reds fan
And therein lies the problem.....who "classifies" a gun as a combat or assault weapon????

Common sense does, I would like to think. ;)

[BwdLion73]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
Can someone explain why normal everday citizens need AR's, or AK-47's?

Just read some of the post on here....that should answer your question.;)

[waterboy]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
They has been no infringement upon our rights, and if you read what the Second Amendment says verbatim you would understand what they were trying to protect. But instead you want to try to interpret it to fit your own ideals. You're not going to have to give up any rights, or your guns, that's the point. But go ahead and believe what the media tells you. Republicans love to tell everyone that Democrats want to take our guns and promise to end abortion, neither of which are true. Keep following the herd and believing everything you hear.
I don't agree with you on the infringement of rights part, nor your interpretation of the Second Amendment.........and I am neither a Republican, nor do I watch Fox News. So, who's following who? My interpretation is the literal context of the Second Amendment, what's your interpretation? Are you progressively changing it to fit your ideals? I'm definitely NOT changing anything in the Second Amendment, nor reading something into it that's not there........

:wave:

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Common sense does, I would like to think. ;)

That is funny, there is no common sense , only emotion has been demonstrated when trying to slap a definition on guns. It has a "military" look, ban it! That is what we have seen in the past and likely the future.

[ronwx5x]

This is the complete second amendment, no more and no less.

"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."

The problem has always been, what was the original intent?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by waterboy
I don't agree with you on the infringement of rights part, nor your interpretation of the Second Amendment.........and I am neither a Republican, nor do I watch Fox News. So, who's following who? My interpretation is the literal context of the Second Amendment, what's your interpretation? Are you progressively changing it to fit your ideals? I'm definitely NOT changing anything in the Second Amendment, nor reading something into it that's not there........

:wave:

My interpretation of the Second Amendment is strictly literal, I believe that I have said that already. I'm not really following your point? Your interpretation is far from literal if you feel entitled to own and possess guns based on the Second Amendment, because if you read it verbatim and interpret it in a literal fashion, you will see that it is for the protection of state and individual rights against a tyrannical government regime. Not just that anybody can buy guns at any time with no restrictions. I'm not grasping what you're trying to say, because if you are saying what I interpreted you as saying earlier, which is that we are going to have to give up our rights to guns and various other rights, then you obviously aren't interpreting the Second Amendment literally. :wave:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by SintonPirateFan
also, since when has "common sense" been associated with this administration? :clap: :clap:




:D

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Reds fan
And therein lies the problem.....who "classifies" a gun as a combat or assault weapon????

Set limitations based on rate of fire and/or caliber would have to be agreed upon by organizations such as the NRA and military.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Reds fan
That is funny, there is no common sense , only emotion has been demonstrated when trying to slap a definition on guns. It has a "military" look, ban it! That is what we have seen in the past and likely the future.

Judging something based on appearance solely isn't using common sense. That's using ignorance.

My point was that common sense can help you distinguish which gun can be classified in which category.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
This is the complete second amendment, no more and no less.

"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."

The problem has always been, what was the original intent?

My english teacher used the Second Amendment to point out just how important the placement of a comma is to the meaning of a sentence. The comma right before the "right of the people" is HUGE!

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
My interpretation of the Second Amendment is.... Flawed.:D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Flawed.:D

I'll hit an old man in public.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Judging something based on appearance solely isn't using common sense. That's using ignorance.

My point was that common sense can help you distinguish which gun can be classified in which category.

Bingo, ignorance is the key here! And ignorance is what fuels the debate. The ignorance of those making that decision has clearly been shown in the past and will continue into the future.

That is why I have asked before, can you show me a difference between an AK-47 and a Remington 742, other than appearance????

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Bingo, ignorance is the key here! And ignorance is what fuels the debate. The ignorance of those making that decision has clearly been shown in the past and will continue into the future.

That is why I have asked before, can you show me a difference between an AK-47 and a Remington 742, other than appearance????

I've never owned a 742, nor have I shot one, but I'm assuming that it is semi-automatic and has a smaller caliber. If those are true, then there is a lot of difference. Also, the AK-47 has full-automatic potential....I doubt that a 742 does but I don't know. I could do some research and find out.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Reds fan
My english teacher used the Second Amendment to point out just how important the placement of a comma is to the meaning of a sentence. The comma right before the "right of the people" is HUGE! Very much so. Once you allow the goverment to limit or take away any type of weapon without protest then they will continue to take away and take away until law abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Everyone is responding like it's a poll about how you feel about guns/gun ownership/gun control/etc. Like voting yes is some kind of statement about how you feel about guns. But in reality it's more like a poll to see how well-informed Americans are--do you know what the Second Amendment is, not how do you feel about it.

I think I know what the 2nd Amendment says and means. Some more liberal minded people say I don't. I voted in this poll with the mindset that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own guns. I own many guns: therefore, I must believe that I have that right. I was not exercising the knowledge that I obtained in Government class. Yes, it is a poll about an individual's feelings about guns and gun ownership. I don't think it was meant to be a "true/false" poll.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by MUSTANG69
I think I know what the 2nd Amendment says and means. Some more liberal minded people say I don't. I voted in this poll with the mindset that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own guns. I own many guns: therefore, I must believe that I have that right. I was not exercising the knowledge that I obtained in Government class. Yes, it is a poll about an individual's feelings about guns and gun ownership. I don't think it was meant to be a "true/false" poll.

I own many guns as well. But not because the Second Amendment gives me that right. The term to "bear arms" was strictly used as a military term when the Constitution was written; you can look back on documents that were drafted by our forefathers aside from the Constitution and look at the context of the terminology itself.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I've never owned a 742, nor have I shot one, but I'm assuming that it is semi-automatic and has a smaller caliber. If those are true, then there is a lot of difference. Also, the AK-47 has full-automatic potential....I doubt that a 742 does but I don't know. I could do some research and find out.

Ok, you are admitting your ignorance the issue. Please do not take "ignorance" as an insult, you are a smart guy and know the meaning. I am ignorant of some things too but generally won't debate them unless I have educated myself on a particuler topic.

You are correct in that both are semi-automatic, you are technically incorrect on caliber, as the 742 comes in a variety of calibers, .240 the smallest to .30 caliber the largest. The AK-47 is typically chambered to the smaller .220 calibers. Both could be "modified" to be fully automatic, but that is already illegal to own without the strictest of licensing.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Ok, you are admitting your ignorance the issue. Please do not take "ignorance" as an insult, you are a smart guy and know the meaning. I am ignorant of some things too but generally won't debate them unless I have educated myself on a particuler topic.

You are correct in that both are semi-automatic, you are technically incorrect on caliber, as the 742 comes in a variety of calibers, .240 the smallest to .30 caliber the largest. The AK-47 is typically chambered to the smaller .220 calibers. Both could be "modified" to be fully automatic, but that is already illegal to own without the strictest of licensing.

Exactly, but I wasn't allowing my ignorance on the issue to dictate my overall viewpoint on the issue.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
My interpretation of the Second Amendment is strictly literal, I believe that I have said that already. I'm not really following your point? Your interpretation is far from literal if you feel entitled to own and possess guns based on the Second Amendment, because if you read it verbatim and interpret it in a literal fashion, you will see that it is for the protection of state and individual rights against a tyrannical government regime. Not just that anybody can buy guns at any time with no restrictions. I'm not grasping what you're trying to say, because if you are saying what I interpreted you as saying earlier, which is that we are going to have to give up our rights to guns and various other rights, then you obviously aren't interpreting the Second Amendment literally. :wave:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, too. I'm not making an interpretation of the Second Amendment. It's plain enough English for me, too, yet you assumed I was a Republican and I watch Fox News just because I don't believe the government should infringe on my gun rights any further than they already have. If the government feels like every American who has guns should register them, do you think that those with criminal intent would ever abide by the same rules? That's why I will NOT register my guns. We have a historical precedent for a country who demanded their citizens register their guns, and we all know what happened there.:thinking:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by waterboy
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, too. I'm not making an interpretation of the Second Amendment. It's plain enough English for me, too, yet you assumed I was a Republican and I watch Fox News just because I don't believe the government should infringe on my gun rights any further than they already have. If the government feels like every American who has guns should register them, do you think that those with criminal intent would ever abide by the same rules? That's why I will NOT register my guns. We have a historical precedent for a country who demanded their citizens register their guns, and we all know what happened there.:thinking:


Sorry for making that assumption if it were false. I don't register my weapons either, but not for fear of the current regime, but for later ones.

[Phil C]

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

:mad:

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by waterboy
We have a historical precedent for a country who demanded their citizens register their guns, and we all know what happened there.:thinking:

I am thinking....Australia!

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Who the hell is Keith Olberman?

OK so its Olbermann. You know, the guy behind you with his hand up your back side.

[Phil C]

I once read that after Pearl Harbor Japan was in great position to invade our west coast but they hesitated because they knew our citizens had the right to bear arms. Due to the hesitation we were able to have time to regroup and take the offensive.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Exactly, but I wasn't allowing my ignorance on the issue to dictate my overall viewpoint on the issue.

OK, and my point is that too many are willing to trust that those making those decisions will use "common sense" and that just has not been demonstrated very well in the past.

[Phil C]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Sorry for making that assumption if it were false. I don't register my weapons either, but not for fear of the current regime, but for later ones.

BBDE IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

[BreckTxLonghorn]

hehehehehehehhehehehhehehehehehhehehehheheh


http://pugetsoundblogs.com/bremertonbeat/files/2008/11/bear-arms.jpg





/Peter Griffin laugh

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, too. I'm not making an interpretation of the Second Amendment. It's plain enough English for me, too, yet you assumed I was a Republican and I watch Fox News just because I don't believe the government should infringe on my gun rights any further than they already have. If the government feels like every American who has guns should register them, do you think that those with criminal intent would ever abide by the same rules? That's why I will NOT register my guns. We have a historical precedent for a country who demanded their citizens register their guns, and we all know what happened there.:thinking:

Many nations require gun registration and strictly control not only what you may own, but who may own a gun. In several, a hunting license is required, which in turn requires a background check, a safety course, and continuing education.

Germany, U.K., France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Japan all have strict gun control laws.. You could add many other, less democratic countries, but it has always interested me how concerned we as a nation are with guns as a means of protection, when these countries are relatively free yet control gun ownership, Am I missing something?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Phil C
BBDE IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

Once again Phil, not true. The military and law enforcement will still have guns.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Many nations require gun registration and strictly control not only what you may own, but who may own a gun. In several, a hunting license is required, which in turn requires a background check, a safety course, and continuing education.

Germany, U.K., France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Japan all have strict gun control laws.. You could add many other, less democratic countries, but it has always interested me how concerned we as a nation are with guns as a means of protection, when these countries are relatively free yet control gun ownership, Am I missing something?

Apparently the Second Amendment.....

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Apparently the Second Amendment.....

As I'm the one who actually posted the second amendment in a previous post, I obviously did not "miss" it. I'm not stating my opinion on whether the second amendment does or does not allow the government to control gun ownership, just that we as a people seem awfully taken with guns.

It is pretty much a non-issue in other countries.

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I own many guns as well. But not because the Second Amendment gives me that right. The term to "bear arms" was strictly used as a military term when the Constitution was written; you can look back on documents that were drafted by our forefathers aside from the Constitution and look at the context of the terminology itself.

I was not arguing the points of the 2nd Amendment. I was making a statement about what I thought the poll was for. Please stay on track. :D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Apparently the Second Amendment.....
....as a tool to scare the masses. LOL what happened? Did someone get an email again saying someone was coming for their guns?

I'm against it, I want protection from ignorant roving mobs of morons wrapped in the flag holding a cross and a rifle asking me to love it or leave it.

[Bullaholic]

The question was asked earlier---What use does the average citizen have for ownership of combat or assault weapons? I know the case can be made that the AK-47 is a pretty good deer rifle in thick bush, but how about all the others? They were all designed for one purpose---the killing of lots of people in a hurry.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x

It is pretty much a non-issue in other countries. it's a political card here

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Many nations require gun registration and strictly control not only what you may own, but who may own a gun. In several, a hunting license is required, which in turn requires a background check, a safety course, and continuing education.

Germany, U.K., France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Japan all have strict gun control laws.. You could add many other, less democratic countries, but it has always interested me how concerned we as a nation are with guns as a means of protection, when these countries are relatively free yet control gun ownership, Am I missing something? They are not only effective for protection, but for hunting and relaxation. They also are a very good investment, and are something for kids to look forward to being passed along to them. My 30-30 is about to be passed to my son, making the 4th generation to own this gun. It is sad that kids in those countries may not have that right.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
As I'm the one who actually posted the second amendment in a previous post, I obviously did not "miss" it. I'm not stating my opinion on whether the second amendment does or does not allow the government to control gun ownership, just that we as a people seem awfully taken with guns.

It is pretty much a non-issue in other countries.

Heritage.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
They are not only effective for protection, but for hunting and relaxation. They also are a very good investment, and are something for kids to look forward to being passed along to them. My 30-30 is about to be passed to my son, making the 4th generation to own this gun. It is sad that kids in those countries may not have that right. They probably don't care too. Politicians in those countries fear the populace more than ours do.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by LE Dad
They are not only effective for protection, but for hunting and relaxation. They also are a very good investment, and are something for kids to look forward to being passed along to them. My 30-30 is about to be passed to my son, making the 4th generation to own this gun. It is sad that kids in those countries may not have that right.

Got no prob with your 30-30, LE---got a 30-.06, myself. My reply to the protection argument is---if max protection is the goal, why not invest in some Claymores, maybe a LAW, or some tandem-mount .50cal AA?

[SintonPirateFan]

it's a non-issue in other countries because in most other countries, they aren't allowed to "keep and bear arms"


and if the 2nd amendment was meant for the military, why didn't they say that instead of PEOPLE?

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Got no prob with your 30-30, LE---got a 30-.06, myself. My reply to the protection argument is---if max protection is the goal, why not invest in some Claymores, maybe a LAW, or some tandem-mount .50cal AA?

LOL--I'm picturing people going out and buying actual claymores for home protection. Imagine whipping out a 5-foot sword to scare off home invaders...

[Phil C]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Once again Phil, not true. The military and law enforcement will still have guns.

Right you are ron but what that saying meant was that the honest people would turn in their guns to the authorities in obediance to the law but that the criminals wouldn't and this would put the ordinary honest people in danger.

It is like the bee that wanted the fatal sting to humans. Once upon a time a bee worked very hard and made a big honey cone for the god Jupiter. When presented to Jupiter he was so pleased that he granted the bee anything he wished. The bee wished for a sting that would be fatal to humans. This distressed Jupiter because he didn't want mankind at the mercy of bees but he had promised so he said to the bee "Granted, but each time you sting a human it will tear off part of the stinger and be fatal to you also."

So the reason the old saying came into existence ron was that in a confrontation between the honest ordinary citizen when no police or military were around that he would be at the mercy of an armed criminal while he was unarmed.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BullsFan
LOL--I'm picturing people going out and buying actual claymores for home protection. Imagine whipping out a 5-foot sword to scare off home invaders...

Reminds me of the Indiana Jones movie (can't remember which one) where the bad guy is chasing Indie through the streets of some North African village. The chase lasts for quite some time, then Indie suddenly remembers he has a gun. End of chase.:clap:

[Phil C]

Originally posted by Phil C
Right you are ron but what that saying meant was that the honest people would turn in their guns to the authorities in obediance to the law but that the criminals wouldn't and this would put the ordinary honest people in danger.

It is like the bee that wanted the fatal sting to humans. Once upon a time a bee worked very hard and made a big honey cone for the god Jupiter. When presented to Jupiter he was so pleased that he granted the bee anything he wished. The bee wished for a sting that would be fatal to humans. This distressed Jupiter because he didn't want mankind at the mercy of bees but he had promised so he said to the bee "Granted, but each time you sting a human it will tear off part of the stinger and be fatal to you also."

So the reason the old saying came into existence ron was that in a confrontation between the honest ordinary citizen when no police or military were around that he would be at the mercy of an armed criminal while he was unarmed.

That is why the old saying came into being:

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:mad:

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by MUSTANG69
I think I know what the 2nd Amendment says and means. Some more liberal minded people say I don't. I voted in this poll with the mindset that the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own guns. I own many guns: therefore, I must believe that I have that right. I was not exercising the knowledge that I obtained in Government class. Yes, it is a poll about an individual's feelings about guns and gun ownership. I don't think it was meant to be a "true/false" poll.

Went and looked at it again, and I think you're right. I honestly hadn't thought that the right to bear arms as an individual was ever in question--just the idea of limitation of those rights and/or the original intent of the Amendment. In retrospect, I think the poll is either disingenuous or inflammatory, but you are correct about the intent.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Reminds me of the Indiana Jones movie (can't remember which one) where the bad guy is chasing Indie through the streets of some North African village. The chase lasts for quite some time, then Indie suddenly remembers he has a gun. End of chase.:clap:

It's the very first one, Raiders of the Lost Ark. A classic!

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Phil C
Right you are ron but what that saying meant was that the honest people would turn in their guns to the authorities in obediance to the law but that the criminals wouldn't and this would put the ordinary honest people in danger.

It is like the bee that wanted the fatal sting to humans. Once upon a time a bee worked very hard and made a big honey cone for the god Jupiter. When presented to Jupiter he was so pleased that he granted the bee anything he wished. The bee wished for a sting that would be fatal to humans. This distressed Jupiter because he didn't want mankind at the mercy of bees but he had promised so he said to the bee "Granted, but each time you sting a human it will tear off part of the stinger and be fatal to you also."

So the reason the old saying came into existence ron was that in a confrontation between the honest ordinary citizen when no police or military were around that he would be at the mercy of an armed criminal while he was unarmed.

Then the saying is "spin" meant to avoid the facts. A bee has nothing to do with owning guns, by the way.:D

I'm no rabid gun-control proponent. One of the main reasons so many criminals have guns is they are easy to obtain. So easy, even the criminals south of the US can get them. Nothing wrong with allowing citizens to protect themselves, just a shame we feel it necessary to do so with firearms.

[turbostud]

If guns are outlawed in the US, it will just create more smuggling jobs in Mexico, along with chingos more chaos.

[Phil C]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Then the saying is "spin" meant to avoid the facts. A bee has nothing to do with owning guns, by the way.:D

I'm no rabid gun-control proponent. One of the main reasons so many criminals have guns is they are easy to obtain. So easy, even the criminals south of the US can get them. Nothing wrong with allowing citizens to protect themselves, just a shame we feel it necessary to do so with firearms.

Very good ron. I am pleased to see you are realizing the error of your ways.

:clap:

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Then the saying is "spin" meant to avoid the facts. A bee has nothing to do with owning guns, by the way.:D

I'm no rabid gun-control proponent. One of the main reasons so many criminals have guns is they are easy to obtain. So easy, even the criminals south of the US can get them. Nothing wrong with allowing citizens to protect themselves, just a shame we feel it necessary to do so with firearms.

I'm on the other side of the fence on this one, ron. I support the concealed handgun law. Got not prob with law-abiding citizens being able to level the field by defending themselves when criminally attacked by that guy who gets all the guns he wants illegally.

[NateDawg39]

I think it should be a law for every AMERICAN to own two types of guns. A hand gun, and a fully automatic rifle. You never know when you might need to open up on a deer with automatic fire and tear it to shreds ;)

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
I'm on the other side of the fence on this one, ron. I support the concealed handgun law. Got not prob with law-abiding citizens being able to level the field by defending themselves when criminally attacked by that guy who gets all the guns he wants illegally.

Evidently, many people support the concealed handgun law, since more and more states now have a statute of some sort. We need to go back to the old west idea. Any person who enters the town has to check his weapon at the sheriff's office!

Kidding aside, I am sad we as a free nation have reached the point that many feel it necessary to carry a weapon for protection. Freedom brings responsibility, but that is not mandated like freedom is. Thus, people feel a need to carry weapons. Mutually assured destruction? No wonder people in other countries no longer admire American idealism.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by NateDawg39
I think it should be a law for every AMERICAN to own two types of guns. A hand gun, and a fully automatic rifle. You never know when you might need to open up on a deer with automatic fire and tear it to shreds ;)
:spitlol: At least with an automatic you can make sure that sucka don't get away......:D

With a little modification, nearly any rifle can be made into an automatic.......:cool: Just food for thought.....

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Then the saying is "spin" meant to avoid the facts. A bee has nothing to do with owning guns, by the way.:D

I'm no rabid gun-control proponent. One of the main reasons so many criminals have guns is they are easy to obtain. So easy, even the criminals south of the US can get them. Nothing wrong with allowing citizens to protect themselves, just a shame we feel it necessary to do so with firearms.

Well, in my case, should the need arise, I feel a lot more confident in my abilities with a shotgun than with a sling shot!:D

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Evidently, many people support the concealed handgun law, since more and more states now have a statute of some sort. We need to go back to the old west idea. Any person who enters the town has to check his weapon at the sheriff's office!

Kidding aside, I am sad we as a free nation have reached the point that many feel it necessary to carry a weapon for protection. Freedom brings responsibility, but that is not mandated like freedom is. Thus, people feel a need to carry weapons. Mutually assured destruction? No wonder people in other countries no longer admire American idealism.

ron, I'm saddened that we have reached the point in America where there are many areas, and individuals on the streets in them, who need to be behind prison walls, that make it necessary to consider carrying a gun to protect my family and me.
I don't live in fear of being attacked all the time, and I try to stay out of the wrong places, but criminal violent behavior in our society is epidemic.

Foreign countries may decry American idealism, ron, but they look for the American who is "packing" when bad trouble comes their way.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
As I'm the one who actually posted the second amendment in a previous post, I obviously did not "miss" it. I'm not stating my opinion on whether the second amendment does or does not allow the government to control gun ownership, just that we as a people seem awfully taken with guns.

It is pretty much a non-issue in other countries.


Actually you aren't. I copied and pasted it in my first post. :taunt:

[waterboy]

Did any of you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the reason this country hasn't had somebody attack us on our home soil in the last century or so is because they know Americans are gun owners.:thinking: Maybe gun ownership is a deterrent to other countries invading our home soil, or at least in the past it has been..... Just some more food for thought...:cool:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Actually you aren't. I copied and pasted it in my first post. :taunt:

:mad:

BBDE, I actually looked for a smily of a "blowing nose" or "spitting", but couldn't find one!!!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
:mad:

BBDE, I actually looked for a smily of a "blowing nose" or "spitting", but couldn't find one!!!

I've actually stopped reading after your post. I'm bored with this thread.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by waterboy
Did any of you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the reason this country hasn't had somebody attack us on our home soil in the last century or so is because they know Americans are gun owners.:thinking: Maybe gun ownership is a deterrent to other countries invading our home soil, or at least in the past it has been..... Just some more food for thought...:cool: The Japanese unopposed by military trained soldiers would have torn through America, weapons or not. That's just a silly cliche. Countries invading the United States won't happen because no country could get off their own shores w/o being decimated (today).

[waterboy]

Originally posted by DDBooger
The Japanese unopposed by military trained soldiers would have torn through America, weapons or not. That's just a silly cliche. Countries invading the United States won't happen because no country could get off their own shores w/o being decimated (today).
Cliche', or not, I think it is somewhat of a deterrent. It's true that the Japanese, nor the Germans, could establish a base close enough to America's shores to launch attacks on the U.S. back then.....the capability just wasn't there, but I have to disagree with them being able to "tear through America" even if they would've had the capability. It would've been bloody and slow for sure, which would've caused us to bring militarily trained soldiers back to home soil. I think the American people would've resisted them plenty long enough for that to happen.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by waterboy
Cliche', or not, I think it is somewhat of a deterrent. It's true that the Japanese, nor the Germans, could establish a base close enough to America's shores to launch attacks on the U.S. back then.... Well, technically speaking, neither was interested in the first place. IT was about control. Shipping lanes, material, resources. Japan wanted to control the Pac, the Germans Europe, Med, Balkans, Africa. America was of no interest. In fact, some Americans (including Ford) weren't at all scared of entering into diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany, until the war of course. Even then, American Co. still provided some services.

.
Originally posted by waterboy
the capability just wasn't there, but I have to disagree with them being able to "tear through America" even if they would've had the capability. It would've been bloody and slow for sure Bloody for Americans and slow because of the expanse and distance between populace. They didn't conquer most of Asia because they were concerned with collateral damage or hearts and minds (see rape of Nanking). Militias would have been torn to shreds in pitched battles. Resistance (ie French during WWII) would likely be the only alternative AFTER an occupation. Even then, the japanese would merely have destroyed the populations supporting the insurgency.

.
Originally posted by waterboy
which would've caused us to bring militarily trained soldiers back to home soil. I think the American people would've resisted them plenty long enough for that to happen. IF we had Japanese on our soil, rest assured it would be only after they had destroyed our forces abroad. That's just common sense. I'd have to research the status of National Guard troops and utilization of them during WWII, but they'd really be the only semblance of hope in fighting off the Japanese.

But again, this is not even worth speculating. They were not concerned with the trouble of managing a nation as expansive as this. The purpose of expanding their empire was to utilize the resources from them to bear fruit in Japan. America would have been an unnecessary misallocation of resources and manpower.

[DDBooger]

This is not to say that Americans wouldn't have put up a valiant effort had it occurred. But if we consider the scenario. A beaten America would have meant nothing to turn back Hitler. England would likely have been the lone remaining Allied Power depending on Canada's response or capitulation. The world would be entirely different had the Japanese even considered that route and been successful.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by waterboy
Cliche', or not, I think it is somewhat of a deterrent. It's true that the Japanese, nor the Germans, could establish a base close enough to America's shores to launch attacks on the U.S. back then.....the capability just wasn't there, but I have to disagree with them being able to "tear through America" even if they would've had the capability. It would've been bloody and slow for sure, which would've caused us to bring militarily trained soldiers back to home soil. I think the American people would've resisted them plenty long enough for that to happen. I would deter...or inter a few of em in my neck of the woods.:D

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by BullsFan
LOL--I'm picturing people going out and buying actual claymores for home protection. Imagine whipping out a 5-foot sword to scare off home invaders... That would be my neighbor. You should come over for our 4TH of July block party.:devil:

[big daddy russ]

Of course our private gun ownership would deter a foreign invader! Haven't any of ya'll seen Red Dawn? :D

On a serious note, Ron pointed out a legitimate fact when he noted that many of the more well-developed Western European nations have outlawed guns without much incident.

One thing to consider, however, is that it didn't deter either violent crime or murder rates in Great Britain (the only one of those countries whose policies and effects I've studied to any real extent). They currently have a higher rate of violent crime than the US even though private gun ownership is very limited (you can't really say it's been 'outlawed').

But to address the other side of the argument, the ones who overwhelmingly push for gun control in the US are the ones who are affected most by gun violence--think inner-city Houston, Dallas, Chicago, New Orleans, D.C., El Paso, etc. If I was watching my son/daughter/wife/etc being shot at on a daily basis, I'd worry too.

For the majority of us who aren't affected by it on a daily basis, however, the issue is different altogether.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by LE Dad
I would deter...or inter a few of em in my neck of the woods.:D
:thinking: .....So what you're saying is.....if having a gun didn't deter somebody, then you would inter them......:clap: That's exactly what I'm talking 'bout!:D

[TheDOCTORdre]

seven pages and I was finally here, but this one looks pretty civil

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by big daddy russ


But to address the other side of the argument, the ones who overwhelmingly push for gun control in the US are the ones who are affected most by gun violence--think inner-city Houston, Dallas, Chicago, New Orleans, D.C., El Paso, etc. If I was watching my son/daughter/wife/etc being shot at on a daily basis, I'd worry too.

For the majority of us who aren't affected by it on a daily basis, however, the issue is different altogether. True the inner cities are suffering from violent crime, but Washington DC has some of the nations toughest gun laws and still has a huge problem with violent crime. Gun contol will only limit those who abide by the law.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by waterboy
:thinking: .....So what you're saying is.....if having a gun didn't deter somebody, then you would inter them......:clap: That's exactly what I'm talking 'bout!:D :thumbsup: Exactly!!

[BaseballUmp]

Still open? :wave:

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by LE Dad
True the inner cities are suffering from violent crime, but Washington DC has some of the nations toughest gun laws and still has a huge problem with violent crime. Gun contol will only limit those who abide by the law.
It's more of a cultural thing than anything and will take generations to weed that type of violence out of a society.

Perfect example is Costa Rica relative to the rest of America. The country is very impoverished (typically the most influential factor for generating crime), doesn't have a standing army, and doesn't appropriately staff their police force. Yet Costa Rica is typically viewed the second-safest country in North America (only to Canada) in terms of violent crime. Meanwhile, Guatemala, El Salvador, and neighboring Nicaragua have a rich history of violence and have struggled with the concept of democracy despite having some natural advantages over Costa Rica. Government, culture, and tons of other factors play a much larger role than most people care to admit.

If I could study anything anywhere, I'd love to live in Costa Rica for a few years and soak in the people and the government and why they tick. Without a doubt one of the most interesting countries in the world (at least in my opinion).

[Charlie47]

Originally posted by PPSTATEBOUND
Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

The first step to a dictatorship besides the blind electing a complete idiot is the disarming of its citizens.

Goodness, I like the way you think!;)

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by waterboy
Did any of you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the reason this country hasn't had somebody attack us on our home soil in the last century or so is because they know Americans are gun owners.:thinking: Maybe gun ownership is a deterrent to other countries invading our home soil, or at least in the past it has been..... Just some more food for thought...:cool:

Um, didn't 9/11 happen in the past decade? Aw shoot, we can't carry guns in the airport...

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Nothing wrong with allowing citizens to protect themselves, just a shame we feel it necessary to do so with firearms.
How is it a shame that someone wishes to defend themselves with a gun against a criminal that is breaking into their house with a gun?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Um, didn't 9/11 happen in the past decade? Aw shoot, we can't carry guns in the airport...

Or masturbate on airplanes. Thanks a lot, bin Laden.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Emerson1
How is it a shame that someone wishes to defend themselves with a gun against a criminal that is breaking into their house with a gun? AMEN!!

Not too long ago an NFL player attempted to use a machete to protect himself and his home from harm and he was shot and killed by a criminal with a....help me now....


A GUN!:thinking:

If someone is in my home they better pray to God they brought more than a knife to the fight.

[SintonFan]

I am a proud gun owner!:clap:

Damned progressives trying to take our gun rights away.:mad:

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Or masturbate on airplanes. Thanks a lot, bin Laden.

We can't??? :confused: :eek: :mad:

[skins4life]

Originally posted by STANG RED
They can have my gun.
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
When they pry it from my cold dead hand!:mad:

I'll second that!!!! :thumbsup:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by skins4life
I'll second that!!!! :thumbsup:

I'll third that!!! If someone tried to take my guns away then look at the video below!

Click on THIS VIDEO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcMQVCSdk-M&feature=related)

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Very much so. Once you allow the goverment to limit or take away any type of weapon without protest then they will continue to take away and take away until law abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

This could be said about plenty of things. Funny thing is people want to apply the law the way it fits their lifestyle and opinions instead of applying the law minus the subjectivity. I mean people want to end a breed of dogs because they can potentially do harm, but give up guns, oh hell no...

:hand: :hand:

[Footballhudini]

guns kill people

but so do cribs and dogs

/thread