Gun Control

[peter_puck]

How do you protect yourself from a government that has the authority to limit the size or number of guns you are allowed to have?

This is not 1776. There is little chance of our government becoming a dictatorship. If it did, there is little chance that you are going to be able to do anything about it. (did you watch the war in Iraq?)

Why shouldn't I have the right to own a tank, a missle launcher or a nuclear device?

Does that same right apply to members of the Crips or Islamists ?

I don't see how you can talk about the pillars of democracy without first discussing the ground upon which they rest. I have natural rights that precede the inalienable or enumerated rights that others would deign to describe for me, especially governments.

How about the other pillars from the era of the American Democracy. Slavery and powdered wigs. Gun ownership to protect you from the government is just as outdated.

[moderateamericain]

This is not 1776. There is little chance of our government becoming a dictatorship. If it did, there is little chance that you are going to be able to do anything about it. (did you watch the war in Iraq?)

Does that same right apply to members of the Crips or Islamists ?

How about the other pillars from the era of the American Democracy. Slavery and powdered wigs. Gun ownership to protect you from the government is just as outdated.

Tell that to the people of Zimbabwe or Guatemala, or Uganda, or pretty much anywhere mass disarment occured. Germany was a Democracy when Hitler was elected too.

[eyeball]

Fair enough. However do you ever forseeing this become a reality?

Only through the development of a political party that's committed to transparency - whose members elect to open up everything they do to public scrutiny upon being elected. We've got this whole notion of what part of society needs to be monitored the most completely backwards. I believe an end to secrecy at the very top of our government would force honesty and decency to trickle down through the rest.

Unfortunately I can't see any existing government submitting to such a thing so it'll probably have to be a volunteer effort. I realize a top-down revolution is a real long shot but arming ourselves and overthrowing the government from below is so passe. We always end up back in the same place. That said I expect a violent counter-revolution of lobbyists and special interests would soon put an end to total transparency. Isn't that what we really need to be armed against in the first place, the corruption of our government from within, before the fact?

Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine our leader's abuses of power and priviledge could be checked by the fear of surveillance? For centuries human beings have imagined God was doing just that. Now we have the technology of video cameras and the Internet. We should use them.

[eyeball]

This is not 1776. There is little chance of our government becoming a dictatorship. If it did, there is little chance that you are going to be able to do anything about it. (did you watch the war in Iraq?)

Does that same right apply to members of the Crips or Islamists ?

How about the other pillars from the era of the American Democracy. Slavery and powdered wigs. Gun ownership to protect you from the government is just as outdated.

I was being facetious.

Gun ownership to protect yourself from the government is not only out-dated its ridiculous, because it always misses the mark.

[moderateamericain]

I was being facetious.

Gun ownership to protect yourself from the government is not only out-dated its ridiculous, because it always misses the mark.

Whats that? No words ever stopped a tank from rolling over your house. Ask the Georgians or the French twice, or the....well i could go on but theres just too many examples to list them all. Look we all got an object lesson this last month from the Georgia fiasco. Moral Imperatives dont mean dick when the other guys got more guns.

[eyeball]

Whats that? No words ever stopped a tank from rolling over your house. Ask the Georgians or the French twice, or the....well i could go on but theres just too many examples to list them all. Look we all got an object lesson this last month from the Georgia fiasco. Moral Imperatives dont mean dick when the other guys got more guns.

You were talking about protecting ourselves from our own government. How does my having a gun here in North America help protect a Georgian from a Russian tank?

[moderateamericain]

You were talking about protecting ourselves from our own government. How does my having a gun here in North America help protect a Georgian from a Russian tank?

It doesn't I'm drawing a similarity.

[eyeball]

So...I really should have the right to own a tank? How about depleted uranium shells to go with it?

[moderateamericain]

So...I really should have the right to own a tank? How about depleted uranium shells to go with it?

Ill give this ago again.

Number one. No private citizen should have need for Military Hardware. Including Military combat vehicles, Heavy caliber weapons (M60 etc) explosives.

Number two. Every private citizen should be able to buy up to semi automatic rifles (including assault stock weapons that cannot be converted) ASSUMING they pass a background check. If you have a criminal record or a history of mental health issues you should be denied the right to purchase a firearm.

Number three, the people of the US should impeach anyone who try's to appeal the 2nd amendment.

Is that crystal clear enough for ya eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

So...I really should have the right to own a tank? How about depleted uranium shells to go with it?

Both are owned by private citizens, but I don't think it is a right. I have an old 30mm GAU-8 DU round laying around here somewhere...we used to use them for paperweights at the plant.

[MontyBurns]

Number one. No private citizen should have need for Military Hardware. Including Military combat vehicles, Heavy caliber weapons (M60 etc) explosives.

I can see some use for this stuff for a private citizen. We may need military gear soon to protect ourselves from the mafia and biker gangs that the Liberals allowed to run wild.

[jdobbin]

Ill give this ago again.

Number one. No private citizen should have need for Military Hardware. Including Military combat vehicles, Heavy caliber weapons (M60 etc) explosives.

Why not? The U.S. constitution just says "arms", does it not? Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to bad any form of arms?

[jdobbin]

I can see some use for this stuff for a private citizen. We may need military gear soon to protect ourselves from the mafia and biker gangs that the Liberals allowed to run wild.

You might need a nuclear weapon as well just in case.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not? The U.S. constitution just says "arms", does it not? Wouldn't it be unconstitutional to bad any form of arms?

It also says "free speech", but we can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Try a better straw man.

[MontyBurns]

You might need a nuclear weapon as well just in case.

No, that would be going too far. A moderate person like myself would be content with heavy machine guns, explosives, jeeps and the like for dealing with Canada's "biker problem".

[jdobbin]

No, that would be going too far. A moderate person like myself would be content with heavy machine guns, explosives, jeeps and the like for dealing with Canada's "biker problem".

That's just Commie talk. You need the big arms.

Edited September 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[moderateamericain]

That's just Commie talk. You need the big arms.

You could just get some heavy duty chains and toss them across the road, then when they get close, just back the tractor up and..... all you would need is something 9mm or better after that.

Edited September 2, 2008 by moderateamericain

[eyeball]

Ill give this ago again.

Number one. No private citizen should have need for Military Hardware. Including Military combat vehicles, Heavy caliber weapons (M60 etc) explosives.

How on Earth do expect to ever be able to protect yourself from your government if you can't use the same sort of weapons they have? You said "The ability to protect are families and ourselves from individuals and GOVERNMENT is a sacred right." You even capitalized the word government for cripes sake.

Number two. Every private citizen should be able to buy up to semi automatic rifles (including assault stock weapons that cannot be converted) ASSUMING they pass a background check.

Shouldn't ownership be a requirement of citizenship? Shouldn't sacred rights come with sacred responsibilities?

If you have a criminal record or a history of mental health issues you should be denied the right to purchase a firearm.

Duh.

Number three, the people of the US should impeach anyone who try's to appeal the 2nd amendment.

Is that crystal clear enough for ya eyeball

No I'm afraid it isn't given your talk of sacred rights to protect yourself from your government and support for the prohibition on the type of weapons you'll realistically need to do so. You sound like you need to be impeached.

You're one of the more moderate Americans eh?

[moderateamericain]

How on Earth do expect to ever be able to protect yourself from your government if you can't use the same sort of weapons they have? You said "The ability to protect are families and ourselves from individuals and GOVERNMENT is a sacred right." You even capitalized the word government for cripes sake.

Shouldn't ownership be a requirement of citizenship? Shouldn't sacred rights come with sacred responsibilities?

Duh.

No I'm afraid it isn't given your talk of sacred rights to protect yourself from your government and support for the prohibition on the type of weapons you'll realistically need to do so. You sound like you need to be impeached.

You're one of the more moderate Americans eh?

Yeah, Im socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative, and Down right crazy about the Consititution.

[White Doors]

Yeah, Im socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative, and Down right crazy about the Consititution.

lol

[guyser]

Tell that to the people of Zimbabwe or Guatemala, or Uganda, or pretty much anywhere mass disarment occured. Germany was a Democracy when Hitler was elected too.

Why go that far?

You only need look at New Orleans for mass disarming of citizens. It was then and remains a gross violation of rights.

[guyser]

How on Earth do expect to ever be able to protect yourself from your government if you can't use the same sort of weapons they have? You said "The ability to protect are families and ourselves from individuals and GOVERNMENT is a sacred right." You even capitalized the word government for cripes sake.

I dont see it as that hard. The Gov is an entity , and that entity is filled with american citizens. While the entity has been ordered to do something, the people who are required to complete those duties may well not do so.

Since any person in the US forces has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, they are by that very document not supposed confiscate any arms. It is why, I believe, that confiscation is usually done by cops/sherriffs/non-forces personnel. I happen to think that the "honour" is not there among the cops, although a conundrum since many cops are former forces guys and women.

One need only look at Waco , or Ruby Ridge to gauge the mindset of the avg gun owner in America. The farce that is Ruby Ridge, shooting a woman holding a baby , has forever made Lon whatshisname, a former respected marksman, a pariah . He has been vilified, justly, for carryin out duties ordered by the weenies in the BATF.

Waco? Whats wrong with killing innocent children , or worse, letting them burn to death. Look I know, they Feds (again the BATF) got tired of waiting and had dinner waiting. What else could they do but set fire to a building knonw to house children? I want to be home for dinner too dammit !!!

And for what............?......... to serve a warrant for what may be some minor illegal indescretion.

So, when you have the BATF openly trying to screw the citizens, yea....they should arm themselves.

Of course of major importance is trying to get a few guns off the streets, just down the road the border guards were waving the white flag signifying to the Mexicans, come on in, no documents needed.

I wonder what the bigger problem is? I know what one is legal and what one isnt. Do you?

[eyeball]

I dont see it as that hard.

Well, if Waco and Ruby Ridge are any indication, defending yourself from your government with guns is a lot harder than it looks, which brings us back to the right to bear tanks. It sure looks like a citizen needs bigger guns than when they came up with the 2nd Amendment. The hard reality of the 2nd Amendment is that it isn't worth the paper its written on, not as long as the government can prohibit you from owning anything that could possibly compete with what the government has the exclusive privilege to bear.

Of course it's ridiculous that people should have the right to bear tanks but what about individual state governments? Shouldn't they be responsible for ensuring their citizens are protected from the federal government, by force if need be?

Of course of major importance is trying to get a few guns off the streets, just down the road the border guards were waving the white flag signifying to the Mexicans, come on in, no documents needed.

You could say the same thing about Canadian border guards and the flood of American guns coming north.

I wonder what the bigger problem is?

In Canada I'd say it's our desire to have our cake and eat it too, prohibition with a porous border.

I know what one is legal and what one isnt. Do you?

I'm pretty sure I know the difference between dumb and dumber if that's what you mean.

[moderateamericain]

Well, if Waco and Ruby Ridge are any indication, defending yourself from your government with guns is a lot harder than it looks, which brings us back to the right to bear tanks. It sure looks like a citizen needs bigger guns than when they came up with the 2nd Amendment. The hard reality of the 2nd Amendment is that it isn't worth the paper its written on, not as long as the government can prohibit you from owning anything that could possibly compete with what the government has the exclusive privilege to bear.

Of course it's ridiculous that people should have the right to bear tanks but what about individual state governments? Shouldn't they be responsible for ensuring their citizens are protected from the federal government, by force if need be?

You could say the same thing about Canadian border guards and the flood of American guns coming north.

In Canada I'd say it's our desire to have our cake and eat it too, prohibition with a porous border.

I'm pretty sure I know the difference between dumb and dumber if that's what you mean.

I could do a hell uva lot more damage with a .308 winchester scope mounted then with a tank. Tanks kill civilians, I only need to pick off a select few. And if I ever had to shoot at cops or soldiers I wouldnt do it cornered in a house or building.

[peter_puck]

Waco? Whats wrong with killing innocent children , or worse, letting them burn to death. Look I know, they Feds (again the BATF) got tired of waiting and had dinner waiting. What else could they do but set fire to a building knonw to house children? I want to be home for dinner too dammit !!!

I thought David Koresh set fire to Waco. Maybe I missed that news flash. Do you have anything other than conspiracy theories that say the FBI set fire to the place ?

As for "letting them burn". Go talk to an ambulance driver about what they can do entering a crime scene. Its pretty much a standard policy that emergency vehicles don't go in to the shooting stops. Look at the killing of the cops in Alberta there. Ambulance crews did not go in for hours because of danger.

And for what............?......... to serve a warrant for what may be some minor illegal indescretion.

The siege was a result of the brutal murder of a number of police officers. I forget what the original raid was over, but I believe it had to do with protecting the children you feel that the police did not care about.

I think the bigger point here is that things like Waco are why guns should not be so available. Koresh, thought his right to molest children was being violated, so he killed a number of police officers.

How about the next nut feels his right are being violated when he is pulled over for a DWI and opens fire. Where do you draw the line ? I know people who feel it is there right not to pay tax. Can they murder somebodys father because they don't want their car repossessed. You can tell from this forum people disagree on what "rights are". Do you think we should all go get guns and settle it ?

If the nuts at Waco did not have that sort of fire power, they would not have to be driven out the way they were. Those kids would likely still be alive because the fire trucks did not have to worry about snipers or bombs.

How many police officers and innocent people have to die because of some nuts rights to own heavy guns ?