What would you do if you were president....

[The patriot]

Originally posted by loncray

The intent of folks living in 1787, needing to build an army out of those colonists, many of which had guns since they were children is absolutely clear. How that applies to modern gun owners in 2003, with a professional Army and National Guard ("well-regulated militia") is less clear.

The intent was so that govt wouldnt get to the point that it would be the "master".

Kind of like it is today.

The reason it was put there was to give the population the tools to hold a revolution (as it did way back then) and once again achieve freedom. It's a safety valve.

The obvious answer.....

Eric

 

[Karl2500]

Should they be sued if their product is used as intended? No, I don't believe that.

Ioncray,

Does this mean that you don't agree with the lawsuits filed by mayors like Morial or the HUD lawsuit that Andrew Cuomo was involved with?



Just curious if I understand your position on this.



I believe, if a particular firearm or a truck or whatever is faulty from the manufacturer the manufacturer is liable.



However, if a product does the job it is built to do, fire a cartridge, move people or materials, as it is designed to do, it is not faulty.



If a Glock, for instance, is fired as per the manufacturers instructions and it explodes. due to bad metallurgy or poor design,(very unlikely) then a lawsuit against Glock may be justified.



If a someone uses a Glock to commit a crime and the gun functions as designed, i. e. a cartridge is fired when the trigger is pulled, I think the person using the gun should be sued, not the manufacturer.





In the vault at your court house with all those "Saturday night specials"

I'd love to know how many of them are in pieces from "blowing up in peoples hands" I assume these are mostly raven or Phoenix etc. small caliber semi autos. I have fired a few of these, I would not want to trust my life on them to be accurate or reliable. However I have no problem with firing them. I compare these to Harbor Freight tools cheap junk that can be very useful in certain situations.

Does the bias against "Saturday night specials" come from actual guns exploding when used properly? or does it come from the fact that many are used in crimes because they are inexpensive (if I wanted to use a tool only once and then throw it away I would use a Harbor Freight not a Snap On ) and those that do "blow up" How many of them had the proper cartridges used in them, and received proper maintenance?



It amazes me how people who fear and hate guns are willing to be led by or lead with, half truths, lies and faulty conclusions.

I just like to try to see some of the truths.

 

[Karl2500]

CFAR

I did not see your post until after I posted mine.

Apparently you and I think alike, but you are much better at stating your thoughts, and a faster typist!

 

[loncray]

Yes, Karl, you have stated my positions fairly succinctly. I don't think Glock should be sued for somebody using one of their weapons to kill somebody. Now, if the gun store that sold the weapon in question blew off the waiting period or registration laws or knowingly sold a weapon to somebody not eligible to have one, I think they are liable to a lawsuit.

Come to Virginia, I'll show you a bunch of junk weapons, (and some nice ones - an AR-15, bunches of hunting rifles, even a Marine sabre) all used in the commission of crimes of one sort or another. I've even got Lorena Bobbitt's knife. So far as I remember, none of them blew up in anybody's hands - the carrier was caught before they could. But they're still junk!

 

[Rman]

how is the AR-15 a "junk weapon"? At around 1400 bucks for an equipped armalite i would like to know just how that can be passed off as junk? Or am I missing the point of this discussion. How is a remington 700 (perhaps one of the most common hunting rifles) a "junk" weapon, what is your point?

 

[loncray]

No, no, read my post again - I specifically said the AR15 is one of the nice ones. So're most of the hunting rifles. But I've got boxes and boxes of junk pistols, sawed-off shotguns, even what I think might be a handmade (certainly hand-welded) grease gun.

 

[Rman]

oh i see now... . oops sorry. carry on with the liberal anti-gun speal hehehe just kidding

 

[Rebel_Horseman]

Originally posted by The patriot

The intent was so that govt wouldnt get to the point that it would be the "master".

Kind of like it is today.

The reason it was put there was to give the population the tools to hold a revolution (as it did way back then) and once again achieve freedom. It's a safety valve.

Yeah we tried that once before. The Second American Revolution started in 1861 and lasted to '65. Government got too big and quit representing everyone and instead did things that would benefit the Yankee populuation, so the South wanted out. We all know for the most part how that one ended up. Too bad too... I wish we would have won. But we'll get our second chance.



Reb [><]

 

[loncray]

Oh, boy, arguments about the Civil War could take decades - and have! To me, I'm a Wyomingite at heart (despite my current exile in VA) - the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression - take yer pick) was an eastern problem! The South had some good early victories thanks to a better officer corps and better motivated troops - but the Union learned finally - and Gettysburg was the last chance the Confederacy had to win on the battlefield without getting Great Britain involved on their side. After that, it was just a matter of chasing down the remnants of the Confederate armies and destroying them.

To me, the Civil War wasn't a Second American Revolution, it was an attempt to keep alive traditions that were dying out. Slavery was already losing steam. And the Southern plantation system would've been replaced by industrialization soon enough. And Virginia ought never to have joined the Confederacy - they had a reaction to President Lincoln's call for volunteers to go fight the rebels. Turns out it was a bad call - Virginia paid by far the biggest price of any state.

I tell you what though - the Union had the chance to execute most of the Confederate leaders as traitors - and chose not to.

 

[Rman]

man civil war now... . HI-JACK!!! I love civil war stuff, but geez we'd be here FOREVER talking about that.

 

[loncray]

Agreed! The Civil War and gun topics really seem to get people riled up.

Meantime, if I were President (dragging the thread kicking and screaming back on topic), I think I'd like to see less corporate regulation - but a lot worse penalties for screwing up. For example, Exxon shoulda lost their shirts for the Exxon Valdez. And I don't see what's wrong with a little less paperwork for powerplant operators - but if they spew more junk into the air, they need to pay a hefty price - paid to the cancer hospitals.

 

[Rebel_Horseman]

Loncray, you seem to have learned most of what you've learned about the war from history books because it's woefully inaccurate. The war was NOT about slavery or the plantation system, despite the BS you read in history books. Next time you read that in a book, she where it was published and I'll bet it says New York. The war was about us wanting to govern ourselves. It was about us getting out of a tyrannical government that cared nothing about the Southern people, only the money they provided in taxes and tariffs. Lincoln cared nothing about the African people in the South, he even expressed that in speeches and actions. The Constitution of the US states that any state can void the contract with the United States at any time, and that's exactly what we did. The reason we were invaded was because the North would have lost so much money that it would have went broke. It was predicted that grass would grow in the streets of New York while New Orleans prospered and the North simply couldn't have that. As far as the execution thing. They had the chance, but had they decided to execute great men they would have surely started a new war as well as run the risk of being hypocrites because of the atrocities committed by Union officers and troops on Southern soil. Lincoln was a tyrant, but since he won the war I guess he's the best thing since sliced bread. Personally I can't stand the man. Anyone that knowingly allows the slaughter of a tribe of Native Americans, anyone that imprisons citizens simply because they disagree with you... reminds me of another dictator that we did away with in the first half of the last century.



Reb [><]

 

[loncray]

Reb, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject - obviously I'm never going to convince you that my position isn't straight out of the back end of a horse, and you're not likely to convince me of the same about yours. I do agree about the US slaughtering Indians - we have a bad history to have to live down there, just like the Spanish in Central and South America. I dunno what Lincoln might've had to do with any of it though. As to your 'great men', great men would've done something other'n flee to Mexico. As to Union atrocities in the war, both sides were guilty of atrocities - Andersonville was one of the Southern ones. I don't believe Sherman was committing atrocities though (a position that I believe will be like raw meat to the South'ners among us), he was just very efficient in winning his battles.

And no, I didn't get my information out of history books. Growing up in Wyoming, the Civil War just wasn't as important as the Western Expansion that happened afterwards. I've read the Shaara books several times recently, as well as a few reference books.

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

Ioncary, since you want to stick to every word of the constitution how about these?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That ones been thrown out the window completely - like it was never there. I try soooooo hard to stay out of the political debates here on the site but sometimes . . . .

 

[loncray]

Hi, Steve! What would forums like this do if everybody agreed? And you're right, the Constitution was set up so we'd have a small central govt. and more powerful states. The Civil War can certainly be interpreted as an attack on the rights of the Southern states to secede from the Union. I'd guess the northern Union decided it was more important to remain one nation rather than a bunch of little ones. Since I wasn't there, I can't know exactly how that would play out today - though it sounds like one possibility would be South Carolina filing suit in the US Supreme Court, calling the war against them unconstitutional. Like I said - an Eastern problem!

 

[Rman]

Originally posted by loncray

I'd guess the northern Union decided it was more important to remain one nation rather than a bunch of little ones.

yeah or they decided they'd go broke and wouldn't let them leave without a fight!

 

[loncray]

What I've read suggests a bit differently - the South wasn't going to survive in an industrialized world, at least not at the same levels as the North. The North could import what it had been getting from the South - fabric and some crops as I understand it. The South would've had to import a LOT more stuff - those states weren't as self-sufficient as the Northern ones. But it's all moot - the Union Army won and the Confederate one didn't. Simple as that.

 

[CFAR]

Karl2500

I only beat you by 7 minutes. Re-writes take up most of my time.



Lets see a $100 raven or nothing hmmmmmmm



I'll take the raven.

May work just by showing the bad guy you are armed.

I've fired these "junk guns"/"saturday night specials", they may not have the fit and finish of the more expensive guns but they do generally get the job done. Most gun explosions I've seen come from one of two sources. One reloaders double charging, two wrong ammunition/new ammo in old gun. An example lets say I have a shotgun that was made in the 30's it has no provision to stop me from putting a 3" magnum shell in it, if I do, it may or not have an event, it would be the equivalent of say putting a hot liquid, in a soft container between my legs in a moving vehicle(especially the way these 4x4 Rams ride), pretty stupid eh.

Most of the pressures in the calibres are pretty low so, explosive events lets call them are relatively few. Any firearm that is abused and or not maintained properly can malfunction.



What was it Charlie Daniels said? Anyone besides RB, I'm sure he knows.



Don't forget IX.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.





Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[Karl2500]

Ioncray,

Thanks for the invite to VA, I am sure that there are plenty of inexpensive guns here. Some folks would probably tell me to just look at my own gun collection . All of us on this board enjoy owning the best of the best otherwise this would be a duramax website.

The point I am trying to make is there is a place for those "junk guns" I don't mean homemade or home welded, but inexpensive semi autos like the one I used to legally carry in NY when I didn't have two nickles to rub together.

I would have loved a Glock or Sig but I had to get what I could afford.



This does lead to an interesting point.

history shows that we can't keep guns from criminals.

I'd rather they have jam prone . 22's &. 25's than stolen Glocks and Sigs



If they can't get the high end stuff they might try to make their own!!



" I dunno this bullet thing kinda fits into dis plumbing pipe from home depot"



This might help to cleanse the gene pool but how many others will they take with them.

 

[CFAR]

This is one of the most abused parts of the Constitution.

Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Also known as the Interstate Commerce clause.