CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 4, 2014 7:21:03 GMT -5
|
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 4, 2014 17:45:57 GMT -5
If I had to guess I'd say at least 40% would go nuts if something like this were actually implemented. So do they think our process is a joke or do they have so little confidence in the individuals ability to bring about change that they'd just throw their signature on something so outlandish?
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Feb 5, 2014 9:28:58 GMT -5
MP has his opinion. He explained where he's coming from. You can like it or not.
IMO MP is wrong about assault rifles however :-)
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is as a check/balance to keep the gov't in check. This is a scary concept to many, especially big govt liberals as it is a direct threat to them. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It is about protecting one's own liberty. MP - it can be argued that assault rifles are present more harm than good but it IMO would be hard to argue that they were counter to our framer's wishes.
For all those who say "it can't happen here" I ask that you transport yourselves back to the 80's. (OK, you need to be 40+) I remember doing duck/cover drills in elementary school. I remember "Red Dawn" (the first one, with Swayze). Tell me you saw the wall coming down in '89. No way anyone would've thought the USSR would fold like that.
Given the small % of crimes committed with assault rifles you'd think a bigger fish could be fried.
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 5, 2014 9:41:11 GMT -5
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is as a check/balance to keep the gov't in check. This is a scary concept to many, especially big govt liberals as it is a direct threat to them. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It is about protecting one's own liberty. MP - it can be argued that assault rifles are present more harm than good but it IMO would be hard to argue that they were counter to our framer's wishes. Exactly. Libs purposely avoid this point. Regarding "assault" rifles this is a label that was created and doesn't mean much other than the rifle is painted black and has some modifications to the stock. Many hunting rifles are semiautomatic guns- Mp wants to get rid of those. Those weapons are not painted black and don't have modifications to the stock. So if MP and other libs were honest they would say that they wanted to get rid of those guns and rifles as well. If they had their way they would get rid if them all. This is another problem with libs, they see a way to take logic out of an argument and inject emotion to get their support their cause. The way libs have used these tragedies is shameful. And for the record, I don't own a gun or rifle, never have, but I strongly support gun rights for the reasons stated above by glen. |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886 
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Feb 5, 2014 9:47:19 GMT -5
The one thing that the government can do is keep a better track of people of psychological issues. And while I'm all for gun rights- there is no way in hell any person should have a gun if they have a history of psychological issues nor should they have living in a house with guns.
Note- not one shooting has ever taken place in private school - at the high school or grade school level -u wonder why that is ?
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 5, 2014 10:14:23 GMT -5
The one thing that government can do is keep a better track of those people of psychological issues. And while I'm all for gun rights- there is no way in hell any person should have a gun if they have a history of psychological issues nor should they have living in a house with guns. Note- not one shooting has ever taken place in private school - at the high school or grade school level -u wonder why that is ? I agree with most of that but that fact that it hasn't happened in a private school setting, and I'm not sure that is the case, is not relevant to me. Maybe you can elaborate on that point so I understand that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 10:20:02 GMT -5
MP has his opinion. He explained where he's coming from. You can like it or not. IMO MP is wrong about assault rifles however :-) The purpose of the 2nd amendment is as a check/balance to keep the gov't in check. This is a scary concept to many, especially big govt liberals as it is a direct threat to them. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It is about protecting one's own liberty. MP - it can be argued that assault rifles are present more harm than good but it IMO would be hard to argue that they were counter to our framer's wishes. For all those who say "it can't happen here" I ask that you transport yourselves back to the 80's. (OK, you need to be 40+) I remember doing duck/cover drills in elementary school. I remember "Red Dawn" (the first one, with Swayze). Tell me you saw the wall coming down in '89. No way anyone would've thought the USSR would fold like that. Given the small % of crimes committed with assault rifles you'd think a bigger fish could be fried. You are certainly correct in your restatement of history re why the 2nd amendment was put in place. Let's go back and look at what weapons were in existence at the time - basically muskets and wheeled cannon. Do you think the founding fathers envisioned citizens keeping wheeled cannon on their homesteads? Muskets were a necessary household item for those citizens not living in the heart of a large city - people actually went hunting to gather food for their tables. The British had impounded muskets as an act to limit the extent and force of any revolution against their occupation. The Founders experienced that and put the 2nd amendment in place to prevent such impoundments in the future. Recreational shooting was not a practice - too expensive for sure. Let's move forward to today. Do you honestly think having an assault rifle in your home (AR-15 or AK-47) would in any way be a deterent, used to keep the government in check? If you think the founders wanted a viable deterent (I read that as wanting to be on a level playing field with a military response against our citizens) in every home why not fly the idea of having a fully automatic rifle up to the Supreme Court. How about an M203 single shot 40mm grenade launcher to stop a Government Humvee? Why stop there - I am sure some could afford a mothballed M1 Main Battle Tank - we all know the Government could use the money they could recoup in a "tanks for cash 2nd amendment Tea Party let's cut the deficit" party. The National Guard evolved from the concept of a citizen based military force to augment the standing army in a time of national need - like your vision of a Soviet invasion of the US. I wonder how many of those that hold an AR-15 in their homes, against the threat of some foreign invasion, belong to the National Guard - not many would be my guess. |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Feb 5, 2014 10:23:25 GMT -5
The one thing that the government can do is keep a better track of those people of psychological issues. And while I'm all for gun rights- there is no way in hell any person should have a gun if they have a history of psychological issues nor should they have living in a house with guns. Note- not one shooting has ever taken place in private school - at the high school or grade school level -u wonder why that is ? I agree with most of that but that fact that it hasn't happened in a private school setting, and I'm not sure that is the case, is not relevant to me. Maybe you can elaborate on that point so I understand that. Well - I'm assuming that private schools have better resources to evaluate, treat and track kids that are coming into their schools. Public schools are have to follow rules and regulations ( federal and state) that probably limit there effectiveness. Until that government does something with tracking and treating people with psychological issues ...we are going to see more shootings- both in schools and elsewhere. |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 5, 2014 10:27:57 GMT -5
I would like the Humvee to transport the family around but the gas mileage is horrible.
Those "assault" rifles are no different than some hunting rifles other than the fact that the stocks are modified and painted black. Stop it, again making silly arguments.
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 5, 2014 10:34:21 GMT -5
I agree with most of that but that fact that it hasn't happened in a private school setting, and I'm not sure that is the case, is not relevant to me. Maybe you can elaborate on that point so I understand that. Well - I'm assuming that private schools have better resources to evaluate, treat and track kids that are coming into there schools. Public schools are have to follow rules and regulations ( federal and state) that probably limit there effectiveness. Until that government does something with tracking and treating people with psychological issues ...we are going to see more shootings- both in schools and elsewhere. These school shooting are horrible, but the numbers are insignificant to homicides nationwide. The fact that gun free zones have the most homicides is something libs don't want to discuss. Other than saying, "we need to get rid of guns altogether", which of course is the goal. Libs are disturbing to me more for their trickery than their beliefs. They know that the peasants will not go along with their plan if they know what the plan is. Sound familiar, just like O-care. |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Feb 5, 2014 11:30:53 GMT -5
Well - I'm assuming that private schools have better resources to evaluate, treat and track kids that are coming into their schools. Public schools are have to follow rules and regulations ( federal and state) that probably limit there effectiveness. Until that government does something with tracking and treating people with psychological issues ...we are going to see more shootings- both in schools and elsewhere. These school shooting are horrible, but the numbers are insignificant to homicides nationwide. The fact that gun free zones have the most homicides is something libs don't want to discuss. Other than saying, "we need to get rid of guns altogether", which of course is the goal. Libs are disturbing to me more for their trickery than their beliefs. They know that the peasants will not go along with their plan if they know what the plan is. Sound familiar, just like O-care. Again - its about the treatment of people with psychological and making sure they don't near any guns! |
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 5, 2014 11:31:37 GMT -5
MP has his opinion. He explained where he's coming from. You can like it or not. IMO MP is wrong about assault rifles however :-) The purpose of the 2nd amendment is as a check/balance to keep the gov't in check. This is a scary concept to many, especially big govt liberals as it is a direct threat to them. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It is about protecting one's own liberty. MP - it can be argued that assault rifles are present more harm than good but it IMO would be hard to argue that they were counter to our framer's wishes. For all those who say "it can't happen here" I ask that you transport yourselves back to the 80's. (OK, you need to be 40+) I remember doing duck/cover drills in elementary school. I remember "Red Dawn" (the first one, with Swayze). Tell me you saw the wall coming down in '89. No way anyone would've thought the USSR would fold like that. Given the small % of crimes committed with assault rifles you'd think a bigger fish could be fried. You are certainly correct in your restatement of history re why the 2nd amendment was put in place. Let's go back and look at what weapons were in existence at the time - basically muskets and wheeled cannon. Do you think the founding fathers envisioned citizens keeping wheeled cannon on their homesteads? Muskets were a necessary household item for those citizens not living in the heart of a large city - people actually went hunting to gather food for their tables. The British had impounded muskets as an act to limit the extent and force of any revolution against their occupation. The Founders experienced that and put the 2nd amendment in place to prevent such impoundments in the future. Recreational shooting was not a practice - too expensive for sure. Let's move forward to today. Do you honestly think having an assault rifle in your home (AR-15 or AK-47) would in any way be a deterent, used to keep the government in check? If you think the founders wanted a viable deterent (I read that as wanting to be on a level playing field with a military response against our citizens) in every home why not fly the idea of having a fully automatic rifle up to the Supreme Court. How about an M203 single shot 40mm grenade launcher to stop a Government Humvee? Why stop there - I am sure some could afford a mothballed M1 Main Battle Tank - we all know the Government could use the money they could recoup in a "tanks for cash 2nd amendment Tea Party let's cut the deficit" party. The National Guard evolved from the concept of a citizen based military force to augment the standing army in a time of national need - like your vision of a Soviet invasion of the US. I wonder how many of those that hold an AR-15 in their homes, against the threat of some foreign invasion, belong to the National Guard - not many would be my guess. The type of weapon available back at the time of the founders is a none issue that gun control advocates keeps trying to inject. Unfortunately, you've had success over the years. Beyond any shadow of a doubt the founders wanted the people to be able to protect their property, lives, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from infringement by ANY individuals of government. MP, et al. we are already seeing the weakening of the American citizen - have you seen, ok actually taken the time to read or watch, the stories that have started to come out in the last few years about heavily armed over powering assault teams storming the homes of law abiding citizens? Now envision this aggressive use of power if no one owned a weapon? Can you see the internment camps of WWII? Or we can go the other way and heavily arm all American citizens. How quickly do you think overly aggressive (ahem) law enforcement people (who will arrest you for filming them in the line of duty) would now maybe think twice about overly aggressive use of power? Now if that still isn't hitting the right notes for you how about this? Who is going to defend you when the Muslims start flexing their muscles in the US? Don't kid yourself that day is coming... |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Feb 5, 2014 12:08:10 GMT -5
Somalia!
If your rationale is, well, you'd lose anyway because the gov't has bigger/badder stuff then a) you're a defeatist sheeple :-) and b) I think you're wrong. Certainly the gov has some awesome might but holding 300M people under thumb when they're reasonably armed is probably almost impossible. Going head to head would be a losing strategy but as our founders figured out, guerrilla mode evens the odds quite a bit.
As for your arguments about extrapolating to M1 tanks and Laws rockets...Good points, but strawman arguments. Nobody is asking for that so it is already off the table. Are AR-15's more lethal than a hunting rifle? Per shot no but in the aggregate sure. They're supposed to be. What's the point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 12:24:23 GMT -5
Well, if that is your view of the future of the country we live in I'd recommend you keep your powder dry and your range qualifications current. Thoughts of you rushing home from the office on a crowded highway to grab your AR-15 and then engage a Seal Team 6 squad sounds like a skit for Saturday Night Live! Do carry permits allow you to walk around with the AR slung at the ready? Defeatist sheepie!!! I guess that means you are one towel short of being a suicide bomber. "Ok kids, Dad is going out to protect the house - stay away from the windows - I already hung the American flag from the upstairs bathroom window. Tell Grammy I love her. Remember the Alamo! Now all I have to do is conserve my ammo - damn attackers have Kevlar uni's and helmets. Wonder where the wife hid my night vision goggles?"
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,893
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Feb 5, 2014 14:29:47 GMT -5
MP - how did you get there from where I was? You totally went over the edge. Seal Team 6 wouldn't engage me. Military surveys have shown that. Additionally, that would be in violation of posse comitatus. Nothing of what I said is remotely as extreme as what you've portrayed. That is a classic tactic. I'm not biting. My position is you can do what you want. I'm not running around with an AR-15 so what's your beef with me? I don't even have one (too $$$) but I know many that do. They aren't running around with them either. So what's the problem? I've heard all about the "wild west" nightmares from the left if we let people carry. The problem is that in states with right to carry laws, the crime is lower. Show me where all these crazy loon assault rifle owners are? They're rational folks by and large. You disagree with them so you're making a caricature of them but nobody fits that caricature. It doesn't exist.
|
|
