Hide your guns

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Retraction

Bostrom Seats

Now insert the word Ferrarri instead of the word gun or 50 round clip.

Do you really have a need for a car that will top out at 200 mph?

Is there any special training needed to purchase one?

Does the "Government have the right to tell me if I've got the money that I can't purchase/ drive it?:confused:

I agree that criminals should not have access to guns, however when was the last time that a gun law affected the BAD GUY's access to a gun?

Warm up the electric chair... . it prevents repeat offenders.



It makes as much sense as being hit by a driver and going after Ford 'cuz the guy was driving a Mustang.



Whatever happened to personal responsibility?



If my house is being robbed, I'm not planning on calling my congressman.
 
Last edited:
Incrementalism... . the key to the Liberal crowd's agenda. It has already begun and not just with guns. Check out the media's incremental establishment of the legitimacy of homosexuality and even "man-boy" relationships! :mad: The anti-gun folks will take what they can get... a little at a time... and come back for more! Just as the environmentalists will close a road here, a forest there and soon, we will only be able to take guided tours through "public" lands. It is a very slippery slope we are on and I for one am glad to be a senior citizen that has seen this country at its best but am fearful I may live long enough to see it at its worst!:(



Blue Ribbon Committee supporter, NRA member, concealed carry permitee and fifty round magazine(s) owner ( I need more than one shot per intruder!) and TDR post proof-reader!
 
Shovelhead & Utah Willie - you did exactly what I asked you not to do. You are defending your position by deflecting the question to another topic.



Are speed limits an infringement upon your rights? A 55-75mph speed limit definitly reduces the potential for destruction - it's called kinetic energy. KE = 1/2mV^2. And yes, you are required to obtain instruction prior to operating that 200mph Ferrari on public roads - it's called a drivers license. No, you don't need special training to purchase one, just to use it. I believe most sanctioning bodies require some sort of 'licensing' to participate in their events.



No, new/more gun laws will not impede a criminal - unless there is total ban & collection of all firearms. No, I don't think that is a solution - I own several firearms.



On a side note: Government is not some big, bad living breathing entity that undertakes these actions on it's own volition. Gov't CAN'T do anything on it's own - the people that are elected/appointed are the ones making these decisions that you don't agree with. Hold the individuals that work in Gov't & wrote/passed the legislation/process accountable. For all the chest beating about individual responsibility on this site there sure is an awful lot of blaming it on Big Government.



I don't remember ever seeing 'Government' as a candidate on a ballot. I didn't elect 'Government', I voted for an invidual to represent me in the government of my town/state/country.



Brian
 
"No, new/more gun laws will not impede a criminal - unless there is total ban & collection of all firearms. No, I don't think that is a solution - I own several firearms. "



If new laws will not impede the criminal who exactly do you want to impead by out lawing high cap mags, and no-wait purchaces etc.
 
Its the Doctors that we need to worry about, not the guns. See the following from explorer. msn.



Warning! Danger!

Number of physicians in the US: 700,000

Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000

Accidental deaths per physician... 0. 171 (U. S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the U. S. 80,000,000

Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500

Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0. 0000188 (*Benton County News Tribune on 17th of Nov. 1999)

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

"Remember, not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one Doctor. "
 
Karl,

If high capacity mags don't exist then there is much less worry about criminals obtaining them. Yes, there will be some body that will make them but the population will be significantly lower.



I'm not advocating the out right ban on high capacity mags. I don't have a need for them & am asking what use requires them.



Gun safety/training IS NOT taught at home to the majority of people. I grew up with guns in the house & learned how to use them at a young age - 5 yrs. I suspect that the majority of you were raised the same way & are raising your children this way. Do you hesitate to send a child to hunters safey classes? Probably not, but isn't that a restriction on his/her 2nd Amendment? However, there is a large population out there that doesn't have that advantage & I feel training should be required prior to the purchase of a firearm. Training that covers the proper use & storage (to prevent theft &/or children from gaining access) of firearms. I really don't see it as different than requiring drivers training. Why aren't people screaming about adding an Amendment to protect my right to drive a vehicle? The Constitution is a living document, yes? I'd say driving a car today is almost equivalent to firearm back then... ... For a lot of people their livelihood depends on it.



Laws will not elimate criminals from obtaining guns just like requiring a drivers license doesn't prevent unlicensed drivers from driving. But these kind of laws/rules do reduce the total number 'accidents' because there is a minimum level of training required for ALL people who abide by the laws.



I kinda liked the rider on the latest CA handgun license bill that would automatically issue a CCP for people who obtained the license.
 
Hey Guys

Karl2500 you are right, when you say most people won't fight.

On Dateline a while back they said there are over 80 million gun owners in the USA, Can you imagine if the NRA had a march in DC with these numbers. I myself don't always agree with the NRA, but I understand why they do what they do. ;) And I 'am proud to be a life member, (Give an inch, and they WILL take a mile. ):( Our govt know what there doing, And 1 or 2 voted in inviduals will not stop what comeing. The NRA is the stronges surporters we have in DC, And each and every one of us gun owner need to get behind them,



I am sorry to say this, but if any of you think that it can't happen here, your only fooling yourself.



As to 10, 20, 30, or 50 rounds clips, If you give in, who or what will stop them when they come back 1 or 2 or even 5 years from now. Just look at the Brady Bill, They wern't happy with the first one, who says there won't be a Brady 3, 5, or even 10.



The NRA needs Members, the more, the safer were all be. Remember ( Numbers count ) The only thing that maters to someone like Schumer or McCarthy is Numbers. NOT YOUR RIGHT'S



Just My 2c
 
Okay, NVR FNSH, Let's take your questions (three of them) one at a time:

1. What use is a 50 round clip? Why not? If a ten round clip is OK... . why not 11? 12? 50? I don't need a 50 round clip, but when I am killing cans, rocks and pine cones, it gives my 10/22 (most used gun in killings, I was told) a lot of play time without the reload hassle. But I still have to refer to the nibbling at our rights by anti-gunners. They ARE doing that. We WILL lose our rights if we don't fight them at every turn.



2. Why not a background check? Sure! I believe it might help in a very few cases and cannot see too much harm to it but am aware enough to realize that a "shooter" wants an untraceable (AKA:STOLEN) gun in many cases and if he just wants to rob a place, will use anything handy. Background checks are useful for the mentally impaired or the temporarily enraged being denied for a period of time, but if no records exist as to their condition, they are allowed to purchase a firearm.



3, Firearms training is an excellent idea. I propose that all high school graduates be certified for firearm use and made aware of any and all laws pertaining thereto. We might even start at an earlier age. I can see it now: "California institutes gun training in freshman classes". :rolleyes:



Now, as to changing the topic as you said Shovelhead and I did. It appears, upon rereading my post that you may be mistaken, that is, taking an example with parallel points for changing the topic. Further, I never even mentioned "government"... . just a reference to the Liberal agenda which, of course, would require government participation.



Just keep that term "incrementalism" in mind... . you'll be seeing a lot of that being proposed by this new Senate "leadership". ;)
 
Originally posted by NVR FNSH

Couple of questions/observations: But first step back from the 2nd Amendment 'right to bear arms' mantra & slippery slope arguement for a second.




But that's what this discussion is about, the right to keep and bear arms is not a 'Mantra', it is part of our rights as citizens of these United States.





1. What purpose does a 50 round clip serve? Besides military/para-military use, what reason do you have for the ability to shoot 50 rounds w/o reloading? It's not pratical for hunting or target shooting - except bench supported. I can just see it now - homeowner empties 50 round clip at burgalar - doesn't hit the criminal once, but kills two children sleeping in their rooms. I don't have a need for 50 round clips - you might. What are your needs?




My rights as an American and the Second Amendment to the Constitution enables me to own and keep whatever firearms and components thereof that I want. It does not say "The right to keep and bear arms except... " and until it does, there is nothing that says that I cannot have twin . 50 caliber machine guns mounted on the roof of my Ram. Also per the Constitution, any law that is in conflict with the Constitution is null and void.





2. Do you really think ANY person should be able to walk into a store and purchase a firearm w/o ANY background check or prior training? I'll be honest with you, I don't really want someone to be able to purchase a firearm on a whim - it should not a spontaneous decision for a first time buyer. Way back when the 2nd Amendment was written guns were much more a part of everyday life. Most people learned to shoot at a young age because it was a necessity (I don't have any stats to back this but I think it is a pretty safe assumption). Todays world does not require people to hunt/kill their own food & this has lead to people not being raised w/guns & the understanding of their purpose or how to use them.




Yes, I do. I am not saying that I am opposed to firearms training, but I am opposed to having to write my name down and say that I own this gun and here's where I live. That is a violation of the Second Amendment. It doesn't matter that we don't need to hunt for their food, it doesn't matter that we don't have to defend our houses from 'wild indians' (no offense intended, just using it as an example)





3. Would you support a requirement for firearms training & showing proof of this training to purchase guns if the guns were not licensed/tracked? CA has the Basic Firearms Safety Test - it is a complete joke of a test but at least it something. I'm not sure what's more ridiculous - the BSFT or traffic school.




No, I wouldn't because you are now tracking who has the training to use a gun, that would give them probable cause to search your house to see if you have any guns whether they are registered or not.





4. The 'circle-jerk' gun sale is illegal in CA. CA requires ALL firearm transactions to go thru a licensed dealer.




That just goes to show that California is keeping tabs on where the law abiding citizen's guns are located and who has them. If the nation really wants to limit or prohibit guns, they should vote to amend the Constitution to state that and that will never happen.



Originally posted by Shovelhead

Now insert the word Ferrarri instead of the word gun or 50 round clip.



Let's change that comparison a little bit. Instead of using a Ferrari, let's use those 50 foot long RVs that should be classed as Commercial Vehicles. They are over 26000 lbs, but anyone can drive one as long as they have a valid driver's license. If I wanted to drive a big box van with a GVW of over 26000 lbs, I would have to go to school (which I have to pay for), get a medical examination every two years (which I have to pay for), and pay an extra $100 to the state for the right to drive the vehicle, but any grandpa with no large vehicle training, bad eyes and heart disease can hop right in his 26000 lb RV and drive on the interstate highway system. Why does he need a house on wheels to drive around the country?



Now, who do you think will make the bigger noise if the government imposed restrictions on their wants, the gun owners who want the right to own whatever firearm they want, or the people who want the right to drive their 26000 lb home on wheels without extra training? Either want is potentially as deadly as the other...



Later,

Joe



PS: Crime went up 400% when Austrailia banned all guns, and they are a smaller country than the US...
 
NVR FNSH, The problem I have with "lowering the population" of high cap mags or auto sears is ..... WHY ? Why should the punk who robbed me have be able to go longer before he reloads? Do you believe that if there are fewer high caps around and they are outlawed that me the, lawfull citizen, will have them, or will the punk have them?



As to training myself and my family are/will always be trained in safety and basic self-defense. I don't believe that the elected officials can or want to come up with a training program that suits each circumstance. What we get instead is a generic common sense course that does little more than become yet another useless hoop for the law abiding to jump through just to exercise his or her right. Gun accidents (unlike cars) account for a very small percentage of deaths attributed to them. The NRA and almost every shooting range have gun safety courses available to anyone who wants to learn. If someone wants to learn they will. If someone doesn’t want to learn they won’t. Mandated Courses will not make everyone safe. Do you believe that everyone who passes a road test is a safe driver?



As I said before the goal isn’t us bickering about classes or how many rounds we can stuff into our guns. It is the right to keep them. On this we seem to agree. However the lawmakers who are pushing these minor issues do not, many have stated that they believe in full civilian disarmament. If we keep letting them win these “small” battles will we be able to stop them they go for the war.



I didn’t hear about that CA bill but I bet if it passes it will be harder to get a license in CA than it would be for Charles Manson to get a CCP in NYC.
 
Willie - all good points.



A 10-22 with a 50 round clip is fun to shoot - can't disagree with that. I was thinking more of the AR-15, AK-47 type stuff but you really can't differentiate. A . 22 will kill just like a . 223.





Please notice that I stated on a side note regarding the Big Gov't comment. That was not in direct response to your reply but has been bugging me for a while.



Crash - I asked a specific question about the uses for high capacity magazines. The slippery slope arguement is the standard fall back response to ALL gun control/laws. No where did I advocate the banning of high capacity magazines or did I say I disagree with give an inch, take a mile. So far Utah Willie is the only one that answered the question.



Do you really think that the authors of the Constitution had any idea of what kind of firepower would be available 200 years later? Twin . 50 cals on the roof... .



The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. That intrepretation changes with the make-up of the members of the Supreme Court. Somebody files a suit today claiming the 2nd Amendment is being violated it gets upheld. 20 years from now that ruling may be overturned.



As far as firearms training giving 'them' probable cause to search your house: All 'they' have to do is search the DMV records for Dodge & diesel & 'they'll' get enough firearms 'suspects' to keep 'them' busy for a year.



RVs & CDL: I agree with you that RVs should require drivers training. I also believe that 'older folks' - say 50 yrs old & up - should have to pass a vision test & reaction test yearly:D Okay, maybe 65 yrs & up.



I believe CA requires a 'non-commercial' Class A license for trailers over 10K - don't know if this is required for motorhomes. I'll be finding out the particulars since my new (to me) 5th wheel is 10K dry/14K GVW.



Obviously we disagree on the firearms issue - however that's what makes these conversations educational.



Brian
 
Good thing PW has the voice of reason, I was going to say something stupid, like "stick it"



Can anyone tell tell me why the police need full auto weapons?



Why they shoot drunks 30 times in the chest?(out of 75 fired!)



Time to get a little gun control on law enforcement.



We should never be afraid of the Police, but we sure are.

Gene
 
Ok, everybody is entitled to there own opinion, but this is just stupid, "Crash AF" when you responded to the question "Do you really think somebody should be able to walk into a store and buy a gun without a background check" you Replied:



"Yes, I do. I am not saying that I am opposed to firearms training, but I am opposed to having to write my name down and say that I own this gun and here's where I live. That is a violation of the Second Amendment. "



Let me ask you a question, did you ever have a friend shot to death by somebody who bought the murder weapon (a 12ga. shotgun) and walked out in 10 minutes without a background check? And that somebody was on probation for a previous assult charge? Well guess what, I DID, all because there WAS NO BACKGROUND CHECK becuase alot of people are PARANOID AND THINK THE GOVERMENT IS "Coming to get them" so they cry to the NRA to make sure that they never have to let the government know that they have a gun, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? why do you care if the goverment knows? Do you honestly have nightmares that the government will come in the night and kick your door down? the only reason they would is if YOU WERE A CRIMINAL or threatened someone, and if thats the case, you SHOULD have your guns taken away. I lost another friend 2 years later to a random shooting because he parked to close to some "Tough Guys" car, he was shot DEAD in the parking lot. Its called REALITY.

Two police officers were shot to death a few months ago in Maryland responding to a noise complaint, if the gun regisration system was in effect and worked the way it is supposed to, police would be alerted ahead of time when responding to calls that the homeowner has firearms and maybe they would still be alive today to be with there families.

Police officers are horribly underpaid as it is, why should they have to die because of people like YOU who fear the government and try and stop all these laws. The same govenment you FEAR is the one protecting your A** from invasion. If you dont like the govement why are you here? leave the country.



All this "Gun control laws dont work" is cr*p, how do we know when the NRA wont even let them try? sure, criminals will always be able to get guns, but if one life can be saved because of mandatory background checks, is'nt it worth it?, that one life could be someone YOU love, if your mother was shot and killed by some ex con thug who bought a rifle from a gun show would you still feel the same way?

Unless you are going to tell me that someone you knew and loved was shot and killed by somebody who should not have had a gun in the first place, you really have nothing to say.

Dont respond with some IRRELEVANT sh*t about "Cars kill people too" or whatever other pointless analogy. This is about guns, nobody mowed down the ATF agents at Waco with a CAR, 13 people were not killed in Columbine with a CAR. My friends was not killed with a CAR, they were all killed with ILLEGALY OBTAINED FIREARMS. And maybe it would have never happened it if there were better laws and MANDATORY background checks.

Every gun i own was legally obtained and is registered with the state. I submitted fingerprints and had a background check, i have nothing to hide. It did not inconvienince me. And i dont care if the government knows where i live. I am just tired of these people who are so caught up in the second ammendment "Speech" and dont look at the big picture. All you really seem to care about is YOUR rights, what about the families of people killed by guns?, what about them, did the second ammendment protect them?. do you care about them? No, all you care about is being able to horde guns with 50 round mags so when the government comes to get you, you will be ready, isnt that right?.
 
Originally posted by EMDDIESEL

Ok, everybody is entitled to there own opinion, but this is just stupid, "Crash AF" when you responded to the question "Do you really think somebody should be able to walk into a store and buy a gun without a background check" you Replied:



"Yes, I do. I am not saying that I am opposed to firearms training, but I am opposed to having to write my name down and say that I own this gun and here's where I live. That is a violation of the Second Amendment. "



Let me ask you a question, did you ever have a friend shot to death by somebody who bought the murder weapon (a 12ga. shotgun) and walked out in 10 minutes without a background check? And that somebody was on probation for a previous assult charge? Well guess what, I DID, all because there WAS NO BACKGROUND CHECK becuase alot of people are PARANOID AND THINK THE GOVERMENT IS "Coming to get them" so they cry to the NRA to make sure that they never have to let the government know that they have a gun, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? why do you care if the goverment knows? Do you honestly have nightmares that the government will come in the night and kick your door down? the only reason they would is if YOU WERE A CRIMINAL or threatened someone, and if thats the case, you SHOULD have your guns taken away. I lost another friend 2 years later to a random shooting because he parked to close to some "Tough Guys" car, he was shot DEAD in the parking lot. Its called REALITY.

Every gun i own was legally obtained and is registered with the state. I submitted fingerprints and had a background check, i have nothing to hide. It did not inconvienince me. And i dont care if the government knows where i live. I am just tired of these people who are so caught up in the second ammendment "Speech" and dont look at the big picture. All you really seem to care about is YOUR rights, what about the families of people killed by guns?, what about them, did the second ammendment protect them?. do you care about them? No, all you care about is being able to horde guns with 50 round mags so when the government comes to get you, you will be ready, isnt that right?.



One of hte answers to your comment is very clear... Shot by a man out on parole for a crime... ahem. Did it ever occur to you the fault lay not with the gun, but with ending the confinement of someone who was KNOWN to commit violent crime?



I ask again, and this time with force... What is the purpose of restricting my liberty? Safety? And this <b> intended </b> safety, is it real? Has enacting gun control laws affected a large and beneficial change in the death rate due to voilence? No. So why take my liberty?



If the general "safety" of the populace is your goal... why do you drive an 8000 pound vehicle that will protect you, at the cost of massacering anyone in a small car you may collide with? I can answer... Your own self-interest. You have NO NEED TO DEFEND that. It is self-evident. In some words I hope you recognize:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are create equal, and are endowed by thier creator with certain <b> inalienable</b> rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "



The founding fathers believed that liberty was our born heritage, not for who our parents or nation was, but because we merely EXIST. It puts the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and LIFE on equal footing. We would not dream of suggesting that our government casually take the lives of it's citizens, merely as a convenience. NO, we have a hearing, a trial, appeals without end, and override privelidges by our elected leaders before we officially take a life. And we do so only for the most heinous of crimes, where we believe that doing so will save other lives.



Yet, for no demonstrated value AT ALL, you cavalierly suggest we give up liberty, many liberties. Just because <b> YOU </b> do not value those particular liberties. Many people place no personal value on driving a 400 HP ISB powered QC 3500... But some do. You would be outraged, in fact, screaming angry, if suddenly you were told that whatever you choose was not to be allowed because, well, someone else didn't think you really needed it. Well, I have no need, nor any obligation WHATSOEVER to explain to you my "need" for any particular weapon or even a 50 round clip. I don't need to. It is, in my estimation, my right, by virtue of the liberty I inherited at birth, to own such, if I so choose. So, too, the car I choose to drive, the occupation I choose, the color I paint my house, the style of clothes I wear, and even, if I feel like it, to be a vegetarian... or live solely on beef.



This liberty, this idea that only those things that clearly endanger all of us should be proscribed, has given us blessings beyond measure. It is to this, that a lady carrying a torch symbolizing the illumination of the entire world, stands in a New York harbor. It was not our money, our science, our genes, our scenery or even open spaces, but our liberty, that caused those outside our nation to present us with this award.



This liberty has given us unequaled personal prosperity... it has allowed previouisly unknown personal achievement and advancement. It has turned loose the most inspiring thinkers, to speak, it has defended the helpless, abolished slavery, made racism and many other hideous "ism's" a pariah, where law respects and defends our humanity. This liberty built the greatest nation on earth, and loosed the greatest people to walk it... to twice save civilzation from the designs of madmen who sought to eradicate even the mention of liberty.



And even those things which present risk are not to be proscribed, as the founding fathers wrote a long list of rights that government must NEVER take away, even if the popularity of doing so increased... the ability to arm yourself, the ability to speak ideas, the ability to worship God or not worship, as you see fit. The ability to control our government by direct persuasion of those elected to it. Private property, the respect of our domicile as INVIOLABLE without a court order, and the list goes on and on.



These things were considered of sufficient value to die for. Those who signed the Declaration of Independence did, many of thier families and friends did, as well. Yet, they considered thier life a small price for liberty.



Do you then, so casually, so without regard to it's cost to purchase, then give it away? What's more, do you see it as your right to take <b>MINE</b> away?



I return to the question: What is it you wish to actually DO? Is it your passion to save life? If so, campaign for those things that will accomplish that goal. If memory serves, more people die from lightning strikes than are killed by these weapons you're talking about. More children die from bathtubs and pools than from accidental shootings. More people die from simply consuming too much LEGAL alcohol than from these firearms.



Oh, and lest you diverge yet again from the real issue. I own no firearms of any kind. I don't own a 400 HP ISB powered 3500 QC, either. Nor do I have a Masarati in the yard. I don't even have a hot tub in my back yard... Yet, I value the liberty that gives me the option of having them, if I so choose and am willing to work for and sacrafice other things to get them.



So, do not come to me and ask me to justify the "need" for liberty. Instead, you come to me and ask how much I value my liberty, and if I consent to relinquesh that liberty for the "benefits" you offer. If I do not, and indeed, if ONE man does not, I believe you have no right to take a liberty by force from him.



One of our patriots once said "Give me liberty, or give me death". He wasn't making a bad bargain... we're all going to die. Death is certain... But he got liberty until that death did come. Another said: "Those who would exchange liberty for safety will have neither. " Your taking my freedom, even if it's to have nothing more than a 50 round clip, will NOT solve the problem of crime. In fact, you can eventually remove EVERY liberty man posses, and yet STILL have crime - and then not have liberty or it's blessings.



And so now I ask... CAN YOU JUSTIFY what you ask for? Will it bring what you say, and then ask, am ** I ** willing to trade it? If not, what right have you to then take it without my consent?
 
This debate will obviously never end. I would not have even responded in the first place but i wanted to point out that ONCE AGAIN, you are mixing trucks with the issue of firearms. In my post i clearly wrote:



"Dont respond with some IRRELEVANT sh*t about "Cars kill people too" or whatever other pointless analogy. This is about guns, nobody mowed down the ATF agents at Waco with a CAR, 13 people were not killed in Columbine with a CAR. My friends was not killed with a CAR, they were all killed with ILLEGALY OBTAINED FIREARMS. "



Did you miss that part of the letter?



What do you then bring up the issue of cars. Try and make the point using only guns as the example, if its possible.



As far as i am concerend, this is a dead issue, all i know is Crash AF's post brought back alot of bad meomories of friends i lost to GUNS, (Not trucks). That is why i responded with the letter i did. I am not trying to advocate anything, i am not trying change anyones minds and i am certainly not going to write any letters to my congressman who i am sure is paid off by all the firearm manufacturers in Connecticut anyhow (Colt, Marlin, Ruger).

I refuse to argue with somebody who insists that this goverment is so bad, yet chooses to live in this country. Move to Somalia, EVERYBODY there carries guns, there is no law, does that not sound like a great place for everyone who thinks they should have all the unregistered guns they want?



And i never suggested anyone should give up thier liberties, i have served the US NAVY for the past 4 years DEFENDING those liberties (With a rifle) and i will continue to do so untill i retire. But dont forget that that was written LONG before MAC-10's and gang shootings. The second ammendment should evolve. I never said that we should not have the right to keep and bear arms, all i said was it should be controlled to keep guns out of the wrong hands, thats it. If you have a clean record and know about gun safety you should be able to have all the guns you want, i am all for that. But what is the problem with doing it safely?.



Listen, this is the TDR, we are all adults, and this is called a debate, there is no bad blood. If i come off as harsh, i am sorry. I am not trying to put down anybodys beliefs, i am just stating my personal opinion.
 
PW,

I believe that 55gallon drum catching rainwater in the sun can be considerd a hot tub.





EMD,

You are sadly, sadly misinformed on the NRA. They have done more to put criminals behind bars and protect our lives and freedoms in the last 6 months than all the gungrabbers combined in the last 10 years.



Your buddy gets killed by a crack dealer, and somehow you blame it on NRA.

That, my friend, is fuzzy math at it's worst.



Stop letting emotions make your decisions, step back, and let the common sense you have come forward. I know you have it because you are driving a Cummins.



Gene
 
EMDDIESEL sez:



"Let me ask you a question, did you ever have a friend shot to death by somebody who bought the murder weapon (a 12ga. shotgun) and walked out in 10 minutes without a background check?"



Did YOU ever have a SON-IN-LAW killed by a drunken driver who walked into a car dealership, and DROVE out a half hour later without ANY backround check - and within weeks crashed head-on into my S-I-L'S car, killing HIM instantly - leaving my daughter a widow at 22 years old?



OHHhhh - but YOU don't wanna "talk about CARS"... Naturally not - because YOU value and use your car MORE than your guns - or OUR guns... You probably don't wanna talk about skateboards, motorcycles, bicycles, or a WIDE variety of similar devices that annually kill, maim and injure MORE people than guns do either... :rolleyes:



Could that be because you, and gun haters across the country are FAR more fixated on the DEVICE than the INJURIES they cause in the hands of their operators? You don't CARE about the NUMBERS injured by other devices as opposed to guns - you REALLY are primarily interested in demonizing GUNS, and frantically attempt to AVOID those confusing OTHER causes of death and destruction - even if they ARE easily proven to be MORE common, deadly and LESS regulated than the despised GUN!



"Don't confuse me with FACTS - my mind's made up... "



As as far as the "intent" of the writers of the Constitution and their ability to forsee advancements in weapons in our day - don't forget (OR ignore... ) that those SAME writers fought against the British with the very SAME level of armament as the British army used - ships at sea, cannon, grenades - the whole 9 yards!



Do ANY here REALLY wanna suggest that fresh out of THAT conflict, with such diversification of weaponry being used SUCCESSFULLY by our revolutionaries, that those writers would then stupidly propose to LIMIT future citizens access, ownership and use of weapons in case a similar revolution was needed?



NOT A CHANCE!



Would they want nuclear bombs or F-16's in citizens hands? HeII, *I* don't know - but I *do* know that I'd FAR rather err on the side of too MANY citizen rights than not ENOUGH, which IS the direction we are presently headed!



I realize that this is a very polarizing subject - I know *I* get real uptight real fast when it comes to erosion of the rights of our citizens, fought so HARD for in revolutionary times, as well as later wars. I don't consider ANY here my enemy in any sense of the word - but some of us certainly DO differ substantially on political leanings... Thank God we at least still have the freedom to freely express ourselves on the subject!



That being said, the SAME folks in this thread proposing or supporting abandonment or modification of ANY part of our Constitution are the very SAME ones I referred to further above as drilling holes in the hull of a ship - then laughing gaily at the "improvements" they have created as it sinks out from under them... And us...



Man the lifeboats!:rolleyes: :(
 
Last edited:
wisdom

It was Ben Franklin who said something to the effect that "People who are willing to trade a portion of liberty for a portion of safety shall eventually have neither".
 
Back
Top