New NY gun law
- Thread starter DEKA3
- Start date
the great him
Elite Member
ok, and so then CNN and MSNBC, FOX new, CBS, NPR, ABC, ect are all unconstitutional because the 1st amendment was written back before, radios, TVs and the internet or any other form of communication other than the printing press and hand written nots/letters... ok sounds fair to me.
dont be stupid... your computer will slap you
Kurtis
New member
Oh, ok. So money is why they have less crime violent crime rates....
Mk, that goes both ways too. So by that logic in order to protect ourselves from threats (including our own government), the second amendment should allow all citizens to carry fully automatic weapons just as our military does. Heck, might as well issue tank out while your at it. Anyone can take one statement and give a rebuttal, and this one is certainly original haha. Its obvious that the constitution doesnt apply to just 1789. But I'm just offering another point of view as most of this debate has been one sided. All in good fun
mikebontoft
New member
Haha. If it's necessary... yes.
[MENTION=68420]JohnnyT[/MENTION] Best thing to do is take her to a range and a gun store (so she can see what feels best and what she shoots the best with) Glocks, Springfield XDs, Smith & Wesson M&Ps seem to be the best for the money. Sig and some of the others are good, just expensive.
If you guys can, I'd wait right now. Practically everything is sold out and people are making some serious profit by selling theirs.
[MENTION=68420]JohnnyT[/MENTION] Best thing to do is take her to a range and a gun store (so she can see what feels best and what she shoots the best with) Glocks, Springfield XDs, Smith & Wesson M&Ps seem to be the best for the money. Sig and some of the others are good, just expensive.
If you guys can, I'd wait right now. Practically everything is sold out and people are making some serious profit by selling theirs.
JohnnyT
New member
Oh I'm in no hurry. With a gun and a Sicilian wife, I'll be sleeping with one eye open.
Gerdo
New member
Wait a minute. Weren't you the one that was using a bat and bear spray for protection? Or was that someone else?
There are lots of good guns out there. Think about the $500- $700 range. There are some exceptions for less but you do get what you pay for.
A 9mm is a good caliber, and less expensive to target shoot/train with. Most women can shoot a 9mm. It has good stopping power and not too much recoil. With less recoil, you can get back on target for your next shots.
If it's for home protection, look at something that has a tactical rail on it. Most compacts and full size will. The rail allows you to mount a light for night use in the house, I see as a must.
mikebontoft
New member
ah I get ya. haha
JohnnyT
New member
Thats me. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Until we actually get the time to scope this out, find a range, go to a range, see her fire a gun, and then still be so hung-ho about it will I believe it. But I will start doing my homework.
I'll also be very, very sure to have a thorough psych eval done on the wife. If you think a gun and an intruder is scary, you haven't met my wife. I never should have had the conversation.
shadow247
New member
195,000 deaths due to medical errors in 2011, barely over 10,000 from gun violence. Someone remind me why the government is even worried about gun violence? It couldn't be because they know that a disarmed populace is easier to force tyranny and despotism on. Enjoy slavery!
And then there's this......---> http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e291.html
America is a violent place. But I don’t mean the much-discussed shootings – which are both sporadic and incidental. No, the real violence is invisible because it is all around us – routinized and legalized to such an extent that most of us hardly take notice of it anymore. But nonetheless, it has corroded our souls – and some of these souls lash out in ways that differ from the acceptable way – that is, via the ballot box – but which when you stop to think about it express the same ugly ethics: Other people’s lives are my playthings. And, expendable.fish lead
Are you any less a victim if you are murdered by an Adam Lanza – or the thug scrum sent by the government to do exactly the same thing? If anything, Lanza’s motives were purer, more honest. He cut to the chase without all the intermediate folderol. Such as “you owe” letters from the county (or federal) tax thugs. In both cases, aggressive violence against peaceful people is the common thread.
The only difference is the preliminaries.
My statement will chafe in some quarters precisely because of the near-totality of the conditioning of this country’s people to the idea of acceptable aggressive violence. It is considered – by most people – perfectly ok to restrict the liberty of another human being or deprive him of his property so that it may be given to others . . . via the ethical alchemy of the ballot box. Hey, presto! Theft and extortion become taxes, “paying your fair share.” Kidnapping at gunpoint becomes “arrest” – and your execution (if you attempt to defend yourself) resisting arrest.
All nice and lawful.
But aggressively violent, just the same.theft kids
Process does not obviate the violence – it merely masks it. Makes it palatable by evasion – in much the way that sauces were originally invented as a way to cover up the taste of spoiled food. But the rot remains – and it poisons all who partake of it.
Expecting people pickled in authorized, legalized violence since childhood to not occasionally become overtly violent themselves is probably expecting too much. The ethical line has already been thoroughly trampled. Surely, it is no coincidence that as American society and thus, American government, grows ever more predatory – internally as well as externally – violent lashings out by ordinary people become ever-more-commonplace.
Monkey see – monkey do.
Children are raised up in a society that is now openly contemptuous of the right of peaceful individuals to simply be left in peace, to not be told what to do in every last detail – or else – by others with guns and the apparatus of the state behind them. In which quite literally nothing is not – in principle and thus potential – on the table and up for a vote. They learn the forms and methods of democracy early on – drinking deeply of the soul-poison that a “majority” having voted may do as it wishes to anyone.
Limitless power.Electronic Voter Fraud, Pencil Version
Endless violence.
They are also taught the necessary corollary: That absolute submission to authority in every last detail is the duty of every individual. But here is where it gets interesting: They come to understand that they can be the ones exercising this authority. This power.
This lawful violence.
All they have to do is get elected – or appointed – and they will acquire the legal power to order other people around; to take and dispose of the property of others at whim – even to have them killed. It is a game played with great success by the more sophisticated sociopaths a society such as ours produces in ever greater abundance – the ones who appear neat and clean, suit-wearing and well-coiffed. Who never or rarely have to raise their voices – much less their own hands. Never doing the actual violence themselves, but merely ordering it be done by others on their behalf – and enjoying the rich sense of power it gives them.
But what of the less sophisticated sociopaths? The less adroitly violent who see (and envy) the lawful violence exercised by others – the others who get away with it; nay, who are rewarded for being good at it? What of the misfit cop-wannabee, the unsuccessful “leader” whose leadership qualities have not been recognized? Such defectives feel the same desire to lord it over others – are convinced internally of their natural right to lord it over others – but lack the ability to get elected or appointed or move up the corporate glad-handing ladder.tyrants
When this power-lust is frustrated, what happens? You get a range of results – from the passive-aggressive suburban harpy housefrau who uses the HOA to torment her neighbors… to James Holmes and Eric Lanza. But they are all part of the same continuum. The inept Lanzas and Holmeses (because they only manage to destroy a handful of lives during their brief “careers”) are on the left side of the scale – and the proficient, such as a senator or president or chairman of the Federal Reserve, all the way to the right side of the scale. They destroy lives on a mass scale – and are cheered for it rather than imprisoned.
The lesson is simply this: We ought not to expect a peaceful society when the generally accepted basis of society is reciprocal plunder via the ballot box. When people can elect thieves and in which aggressive violence for any reason is approved of – or even tolerated. Such a society turns human beings into two-legged rats. Cornered rats, prepared – out of Darwinian necessity – to lash out, lest he be the one lashed out against.obama phone
When no one is secure, everyone is fearful. Ready to do unto others as has been done unto him, pre-emptively. A society in which someone’s benefit entails some else’s victimization cannot be a peaceful society. Aggressive violence begets aggressive violence.
That some is performed “outside the box” is not only to be expected, it is the inevitable end product of a society as ethically demented as the society of early 21st century America.
And then there's this......---> http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e291.html
America is a violent place. But I don’t mean the much-discussed shootings – which are both sporadic and incidental. No, the real violence is invisible because it is all around us – routinized and legalized to such an extent that most of us hardly take notice of it anymore. But nonetheless, it has corroded our souls – and some of these souls lash out in ways that differ from the acceptable way – that is, via the ballot box – but which when you stop to think about it express the same ugly ethics: Other people’s lives are my playthings. And, expendable.fish lead
Are you any less a victim if you are murdered by an Adam Lanza – or the thug scrum sent by the government to do exactly the same thing? If anything, Lanza’s motives were purer, more honest. He cut to the chase without all the intermediate folderol. Such as “you owe” letters from the county (or federal) tax thugs. In both cases, aggressive violence against peaceful people is the common thread.
The only difference is the preliminaries.
My statement will chafe in some quarters precisely because of the near-totality of the conditioning of this country’s people to the idea of acceptable aggressive violence. It is considered – by most people – perfectly ok to restrict the liberty of another human being or deprive him of his property so that it may be given to others . . . via the ethical alchemy of the ballot box. Hey, presto! Theft and extortion become taxes, “paying your fair share.” Kidnapping at gunpoint becomes “arrest” – and your execution (if you attempt to defend yourself) resisting arrest.
All nice and lawful.
But aggressively violent, just the same.theft kids
Process does not obviate the violence – it merely masks it. Makes it palatable by evasion – in much the way that sauces were originally invented as a way to cover up the taste of spoiled food. But the rot remains – and it poisons all who partake of it.
Expecting people pickled in authorized, legalized violence since childhood to not occasionally become overtly violent themselves is probably expecting too much. The ethical line has already been thoroughly trampled. Surely, it is no coincidence that as American society and thus, American government, grows ever more predatory – internally as well as externally – violent lashings out by ordinary people become ever-more-commonplace.
Monkey see – monkey do.
Children are raised up in a society that is now openly contemptuous of the right of peaceful individuals to simply be left in peace, to not be told what to do in every last detail – or else – by others with guns and the apparatus of the state behind them. In which quite literally nothing is not – in principle and thus potential – on the table and up for a vote. They learn the forms and methods of democracy early on – drinking deeply of the soul-poison that a “majority” having voted may do as it wishes to anyone.
Limitless power.Electronic Voter Fraud, Pencil Version
Endless violence.
They are also taught the necessary corollary: That absolute submission to authority in every last detail is the duty of every individual. But here is where it gets interesting: They come to understand that they can be the ones exercising this authority. This power.
This lawful violence.
All they have to do is get elected – or appointed – and they will acquire the legal power to order other people around; to take and dispose of the property of others at whim – even to have them killed. It is a game played with great success by the more sophisticated sociopaths a society such as ours produces in ever greater abundance – the ones who appear neat and clean, suit-wearing and well-coiffed. Who never or rarely have to raise their voices – much less their own hands. Never doing the actual violence themselves, but merely ordering it be done by others on their behalf – and enjoying the rich sense of power it gives them.
But what of the less sophisticated sociopaths? The less adroitly violent who see (and envy) the lawful violence exercised by others – the others who get away with it; nay, who are rewarded for being good at it? What of the misfit cop-wannabee, the unsuccessful “leader” whose leadership qualities have not been recognized? Such defectives feel the same desire to lord it over others – are convinced internally of their natural right to lord it over others – but lack the ability to get elected or appointed or move up the corporate glad-handing ladder.tyrants
When this power-lust is frustrated, what happens? You get a range of results – from the passive-aggressive suburban harpy housefrau who uses the HOA to torment her neighbors… to James Holmes and Eric Lanza. But they are all part of the same continuum. The inept Lanzas and Holmeses (because they only manage to destroy a handful of lives during their brief “careers”) are on the left side of the scale – and the proficient, such as a senator or president or chairman of the Federal Reserve, all the way to the right side of the scale. They destroy lives on a mass scale – and are cheered for it rather than imprisoned.
The lesson is simply this: We ought not to expect a peaceful society when the generally accepted basis of society is reciprocal plunder via the ballot box. When people can elect thieves and in which aggressive violence for any reason is approved of – or even tolerated. Such a society turns human beings into two-legged rats. Cornered rats, prepared – out of Darwinian necessity – to lash out, lest he be the one lashed out against.obama phone
When no one is secure, everyone is fearful. Ready to do unto others as has been done unto him, pre-emptively. A society in which someone’s benefit entails some else’s victimization cannot be a peaceful society. Aggressive violence begets aggressive violence.
That some is performed “outside the box” is not only to be expected, it is the inevitable end product of a society as ethically demented as the society of early 21st century America.
Last edited:
My interest here is not in pushing for any gun control measure; per my habit, I want to take issues with some of the basic assumptions and logical fallacies surrounding an number of posts. I open with this preamble as what I post seems frequently taken as anti-gun when that isn't the intent.
There are things that exist as much as we dislike them (e.g. the French) and it doesnt matter how much we dislike them, they still exist. There are also things that dont exist as much as we might pray for them to come into being (e.g. a girlfriend that can pee beer and fart cheetos dust). In that light I recognize that the Supreme Court exists (the only Court created by the Constitution if memory serves) and that it ultimately decides cases involving issues of the constitutionality of laws. With this comes rulings that we might wish didn't exist. This same body sometimes fails to bring into existence other rulings despite some desperately wanting them. Therefore I need to acknowledge a few things:
Whether or not it is possible for gun ownership to be regulated or otherwise restricted by law (at least in SOME capacity) without violating the constitution is unabiguous - yes, such restrictions can exist, but IT DEPENDS. This has been upheld a number of times and was recently recognized by Scalia in a case that ironically overturned gun restrictions in DC as unconstitutional. Where it gets ambiguous is in the details: what the specific restrictions are and who (e.g. Federal or State) is doing it, and there are lots of specific instances that have been held unconstitutional. You might not like the general proposition, that the 2nd Amendment has some limit on what arms we can keep and bear, but it is not a limitless right as decided by the Court that gets to make those kinds of decisions. Simply wanting it to be otherwise or claiming it is otherwise won’t change anything. By the way, understanding this doesn’t mean I care less about the bill of rights than you do, I just recognize the state of jurisprudence on the matter. Don't be afraid to to acknowledge the current state of the legal interpretation of our laws or Constitution. If you want to be effective in advocating for the protecting your rights, you should understand how courts might react to proposed legislation.
Although I don't advocate additional gun restrictions, I do recognize that it is possible to regulate ownership in a manner that could have some tangible reduction in the rate of gun violence. So, does that mean I am being inconsistent or vacillating? No: that is because I understand 1) Just because somet law CAN be effective doesnt mean it WILL be effective; and 2) even if it is effective, it doesnt mean it is worth the cost to our civil liberties (remember Franklin’s words). An example of the latter, we could (without doubt) signifcantly decrease car accident fatailties simply by requiring drivers to wear Snell approved safety helmets. Is that reasonable? No: even with the recognition that it would save lives. You can quibble with my example, but I bet we can all think of ways that would surely make us safer, but that we reject for a variety of reasons nonetheless. It can be entirely an reasonable position to reject a perfectly constitutional gun control measure not because it wont save lives, but despite the fact that it will, particularly if rejecting it is connected to what we think of as being the necessary or reasonable price of a free and democratic society.
Therefore, I can aknowledge the legal reality that we are in, that the Courts allow for some limit to the ownership of arms (even without a bright line limit) while at the same time personally rejecting specific proposals as unacceptable, not useful, or unconstitutional in my estimation: again this doesnt make me inconsistent nor does it point to vacilation. I can also can also be intelectually consistent in recognizing that it is possible for gun control to work, while not personally advocating it (or even rejecting it as either a specific or general proposition).
Elsewhere here in Toyotaville, I recognized something that I think is important, and that is that gun violence and gun ownership rates in the U.S. suggest that our rate of gun violence isn’t simply a product of the numbers of guns in the U.S. The reason this is important is that it suggests that we need to look to something other than restricting gun ownership if we want to get a real handle on gun violence - an odd point to make were I arguing for gun control. The statistics related to the gun control debate are complicated, a bit noisy, and subject to manipulation and some outright fraud (both sides mind you). Having said that, some very extreme gun control would probably be effective in reducing some specific instances of gun violence, but this doesn’t dispense with the constitutional question nor does it make them an acceptable response. I think that to be truly effective, such laws would have to be so draconian as to be either unconstitutional or offensive to most people. That doesnt change the fact that it is possible for some form of regulation to be effective in some capacity. I have seen some folks deny in one breath the possible effectiveness of gun control, while explicitly acknowledging its effectiveness in another when they claim that gun control is ineffective, but that the rise of tyrants can be attributed to it (how can a tyrant benefit from gun control if it isnt effective?). I also recognized that because gun ownership can be a deterrence to crime, there is the possibility that gun control can have the opposite of the desired effect; that it could result in increased crime. In any event, a lot of people are thinking VERY uncritically about the statistic they cite, especially if it supports their side. Folks are going nuts with really rudimentary correlations: think a bit before you cite something and maybe even look at the study.
My approach to the second amendment is the same as my approach to the rest of the bill of rights; I see limitations on rights as something we should only consider with a great deal of reluctance and caution, and something to be entertained only when absolutely necessary. What the specific limitations on any given right are is a complicated question not well addressed by dogmatic tautaologies or a mind unwilling to hear someone else's thoughts.
There are things that exist as much as we dislike them (e.g. the French) and it doesnt matter how much we dislike them, they still exist. There are also things that dont exist as much as we might pray for them to come into being (e.g. a girlfriend that can pee beer and fart cheetos dust). In that light I recognize that the Supreme Court exists (the only Court created by the Constitution if memory serves) and that it ultimately decides cases involving issues of the constitutionality of laws. With this comes rulings that we might wish didn't exist. This same body sometimes fails to bring into existence other rulings despite some desperately wanting them. Therefore I need to acknowledge a few things:
Whether or not it is possible for gun ownership to be regulated or otherwise restricted by law (at least in SOME capacity) without violating the constitution is unabiguous - yes, such restrictions can exist, but IT DEPENDS. This has been upheld a number of times and was recently recognized by Scalia in a case that ironically overturned gun restrictions in DC as unconstitutional. Where it gets ambiguous is in the details: what the specific restrictions are and who (e.g. Federal or State) is doing it, and there are lots of specific instances that have been held unconstitutional. You might not like the general proposition, that the 2nd Amendment has some limit on what arms we can keep and bear, but it is not a limitless right as decided by the Court that gets to make those kinds of decisions. Simply wanting it to be otherwise or claiming it is otherwise won’t change anything. By the way, understanding this doesn’t mean I care less about the bill of rights than you do, I just recognize the state of jurisprudence on the matter. Don't be afraid to to acknowledge the current state of the legal interpretation of our laws or Constitution. If you want to be effective in advocating for the protecting your rights, you should understand how courts might react to proposed legislation.
Although I don't advocate additional gun restrictions, I do recognize that it is possible to regulate ownership in a manner that could have some tangible reduction in the rate of gun violence. So, does that mean I am being inconsistent or vacillating? No: that is because I understand 1) Just because somet law CAN be effective doesnt mean it WILL be effective; and 2) even if it is effective, it doesnt mean it is worth the cost to our civil liberties (remember Franklin’s words). An example of the latter, we could (without doubt) signifcantly decrease car accident fatailties simply by requiring drivers to wear Snell approved safety helmets. Is that reasonable? No: even with the recognition that it would save lives. You can quibble with my example, but I bet we can all think of ways that would surely make us safer, but that we reject for a variety of reasons nonetheless. It can be entirely an reasonable position to reject a perfectly constitutional gun control measure not because it wont save lives, but despite the fact that it will, particularly if rejecting it is connected to what we think of as being the necessary or reasonable price of a free and democratic society.
Therefore, I can aknowledge the legal reality that we are in, that the Courts allow for some limit to the ownership of arms (even without a bright line limit) while at the same time personally rejecting specific proposals as unacceptable, not useful, or unconstitutional in my estimation: again this doesnt make me inconsistent nor does it point to vacilation. I can also can also be intelectually consistent in recognizing that it is possible for gun control to work, while not personally advocating it (or even rejecting it as either a specific or general proposition).
Elsewhere here in Toyotaville, I recognized something that I think is important, and that is that gun violence and gun ownership rates in the U.S. suggest that our rate of gun violence isn’t simply a product of the numbers of guns in the U.S. The reason this is important is that it suggests that we need to look to something other than restricting gun ownership if we want to get a real handle on gun violence - an odd point to make were I arguing for gun control. The statistics related to the gun control debate are complicated, a bit noisy, and subject to manipulation and some outright fraud (both sides mind you). Having said that, some very extreme gun control would probably be effective in reducing some specific instances of gun violence, but this doesn’t dispense with the constitutional question nor does it make them an acceptable response. I think that to be truly effective, such laws would have to be so draconian as to be either unconstitutional or offensive to most people. That doesnt change the fact that it is possible for some form of regulation to be effective in some capacity. I have seen some folks deny in one breath the possible effectiveness of gun control, while explicitly acknowledging its effectiveness in another when they claim that gun control is ineffective, but that the rise of tyrants can be attributed to it (how can a tyrant benefit from gun control if it isnt effective?). I also recognized that because gun ownership can be a deterrence to crime, there is the possibility that gun control can have the opposite of the desired effect; that it could result in increased crime. In any event, a lot of people are thinking VERY uncritically about the statistic they cite, especially if it supports their side. Folks are going nuts with really rudimentary correlations: think a bit before you cite something and maybe even look at the study.
My approach to the second amendment is the same as my approach to the rest of the bill of rights; I see limitations on rights as something we should only consider with a great deal of reluctance and caution, and something to be entertained only when absolutely necessary. What the specific limitations on any given right are is a complicated question not well addressed by dogmatic tautaologies or a mind unwilling to hear someone else's thoughts.
Gerdo
New member
Johnny
I'm just kidding with you. Getting a first gun is a huge step. You have to mentally want one and know you WILL use it IF the time ever comes. You can't just point a gun and hope they go away. If you do point a gun at a perp, you can't just threat without true intentions.
calikev
New member
WOW I have to say I'm shocked with your response. You really seemed against a weapon in the beginning of this thread. As stated already by others...go to the range and rent a few guns.
I believe in all Sig Sauer weapons as they have never failed me. I would look really closely at a Sig P226. It should fit you and the wife well. Get any caliber above a 9mm (357 Sig or 40 SW) and you will be able to get a 9mm barrel and have essentially 2 guns in one because you can swap the barrel in a few seconds and shoot both calibers. I would get the 357 if you can find one. That round is amazing for accuracy and defense and has little recoil. You can then drop a 9mm barrel in to shoot it without paying too much for ammo and have the best of both worlds.
BTW: My wife is Creole and wasn't really happy about my gun collection when we first met. Now she asks me if I want to go to the range and picks which guns she wants to take with us.
Last edited:
JohnnyT
New member
I am normally against even the idea of a weapon, but when you think about it long enough and I remember back to how normally sane peoples behavior changed very dramatically after Sandy during a fuel shortage, I'm considering it.
I was at work for 5 days straight before, during, and after the storm. The wife was home with my sons. People got nuts when gas became scarce. People were literally offering $500 for a plastic 2.5 gal gas can. Just after the storm, neighbors poked fun at my wife for using my bike lock cable to lock our gen to the axle of my truck. 2 days and 100's of thefts later, everyone was doing it. Then locks became scarce. People were siphoning gas out of generators at night while they were running. Crazy, crazy behavior.
Fortunately I live in NJ connected to the rest of the continental US - Long Island was far worse gas wise.
I will never be supportive of anything other than a handgun for last resort defense only. Never will I understand anyone's need for an "assault style" weapon.
theizzardking
New member
speaking of critical thinking......surely your aware of the reason people state gun control isn't effective....
"outlaw guns only outlaws will have them"
a tyrant would therefore disarm all law abiding folks which would be the vast majority of the population dealing with only the criminal element that was to exists regardless...how did that miss that big brain of yours? you can go on about the courts powers and the rest all you want, but I'm sure if you refer back to the philosophical principles that all of this was built on you'd see that your above statements are "mostly" wrong, you seem to forget that our rights to liberty are inherent,inalienable and individual , again so the majority of people can't screw over the minority,using the rule of law and garnered power, supreme court or no supreme court.... yes, this unfortunately happens, but it was never meant to and was often spoken of as a flaw in our system and another reason why our constitution is written the way it was....this is the basis of liberalism and liberty ...why the ***** can't liberals themselves actually be liberal...oh, yeah that's right they are just too scared by what if's...:hatsoff:
so again.... rights>courts/people's opinion/ect....
theizzardking
New member
...i find this post to either be greatly misinformed or just stupid logic..... i can't tell....i don't get the difference in your mind between two guns that have the same killing potential , especially when one could be hidden in the pockets of anyone vs one that could be seen from 100's of yards away coming at you...i really don't get that logic....you should look up the definition ( the current administrations that is) and see what it actually is...if you think because a gun is black it becomes more lethal you probably shouldn't own any sort of firearm....or breed.....
i seriously can't deal with this anymore, i'm out and blocking these threads...
what an assault rifle actually is....
current administrations definition of assault rifle.
Last edited:
Whitson Metalworks
New member
I sortof agree with you here but its on the same page as buying a dodge viper or tricked out ferrari, theres nowhere in the country, well 99% of the country, where you could drive said cars for all they're worth, BUT, we have the right to buy and own as many of them as we like. Theres a lot of sporting fun to be had with an "assault" style weapon (PS, ANY weapon can be an "assault" weapon) and surely a lot of peace of mind knowing you're "set" should SHTF. I dont own a media defamed "assault" weapon, but i own plenty others, and i'm always on the lookout for new toys:spy:
You're point, I THINK, seems to confuse (to some extent) a categorical gun ban with gun control. Maybe I'm wrong here, but if that is the case then that is the ad absurdum argument. Gun control can refer to any measures that regulate or prohibit some form of possession or use (e.g. permitting of fully automatic weapons). If I'm mistaken about your point, mea culpa.
If you take a plain language reading of the entire Constitution, we could come to a varied and inconsistent series of conclusions. Someone has to make sense of the ambiguities. Remember, the 2nd says arms and not guns. Where would the most expansive reading of that leave us? Other parts of the bill of rights and other parts of the Constitution are similarly prone in need of informed interpretation.
Overarching legal documents are often intentionally written ambiguously when it comes to specifics after laying out an important general proposition. The reason is to allow flexibility (within limits) in the application.
The silly extreme is to say that nuclear weapons are (nuclear) arms and then reason from there.
mikebontoft
New member
I am not surprised. People will go so far to preserve their normal way of living. Proof that no matter how you put it, we are still animals.
If you don't mind, I'd like to present a point on the "need." You're right, people don't need assault rifles (which for that matter are no more effective than any other rifle) just like they don't need an $80k truck and a quarter million dollar home. It's a "want" thing. You want that new iPad because it's cool.
If we went strictly by need, then public transportation, staple food, water, and a roof over our head is all we need.
I'd also like to add the recreation aspect of it that so many people overlook. How much fun would it be to race a Daewoo because your standard sports cars were banned due to irresponsible people?
Titanpat57
Senior Member
this will be a great 10 mins...but don't forget what "their" end game is..
and if that isn't enough..our very own UpChuck Shumer is there...surprised?!?!
I'll be a felon..and I'll wear that badge with with honor...hell, I'll be in good company..
War Heros....Police...Protectors of the Constitution...True Americans...
I'm ready....
and P.S. Doc...you leave the no good cowardly French out of this dammit...they make some kicka$$ Merlot!
and if that isn't enough..our very own UpChuck Shumer is there...surprised?!?!
I'll be a felon..and I'll wear that badge with with honor...hell, I'll be in good company..
War Heros....Police...Protectors of the Constitution...True Americans...
I'm ready....
and P.S. Doc...you leave the no good cowardly French out of this dammit...they make some kicka$$ Merlot!
Similar threads
- Locked
