165
Guns Guns and More Guns : Swingers Discussion 85710105351
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsGuns Guns and More Guns
TOPIC: Guns Guns and More Guns
GoTo Page: Less ... 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 ... More 
Start   5351 to 5360 of 5723   End
User Details are only visible to members.
El Rancho HS, Whittier Union HS and Montebello HS in Montebello CA One student was punished. But no one will release what that punishment was.

Spencer TN
Username hidden
(6440 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Personally, I don't think it would be wise but I understand the arguement of what the 2nd Amendment was intended to do. There is a strong potential for some whacko to easly kill many innocent Americans. Taking a preemtive action by passing laws against owning such things would be reasonable to most people."

Wow, I have to say it's weird when Perfect and I agree so often as we have lately on political matters. The stars must be in some misaligned conjunction this week. Or perhaps we're not all that different in our beliefs if we all just take the time to actually listen to what each other has to say and try to become more understanding.

I mean here we have a neocon, a liberal, and an anarchist almost all in unison on a controversial topic that so many people are passionate about. Perfect says its reasonable to most people that we shouldn't be able to own bazookas, and he's a devout gun rights enthusiast. TBR says we have enough laws on the books already and just need to enforce them, which I doubt anyone disagrees with. And I say they're both right.

Sounds like there's enough common ground (at least on this issue) that we could all just nod and agree with each other, and put partisan rhetoric aside. And if that's true, I wonder what else we could find it within ourselves to agree on? Probably be a much better nation and far more productive system of government if we all came together like that more often and demanded our leaders do the same ...

Just a thought ........

Goose Creek SC
Username hidden
(1690 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"If the intent of the 2nd amendment is to maintain an armed populace to protect against domestic threats, tyrannical domestic govts and protection from outside invasion, then to me being as well armed as the govt is logical."

That is an awful big if. Many people do not see it that way. But there are so many words in the sentence that can be defined in so many ways, the "intent" of the founders is very difficult to discern.

That's why I am glad that the DC case is being heard. Whichever way it goes, at least a few of the questions will be settled.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
you know what you could take every gun on the planet and send them to the moon, it is still not going to make me feel safe. Because it is not the guns that are the problem, it is the people.

PG

Louisville KY
Username hidden
(17840 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Dan,

I disagree. If the intent of the 2nd amendment is to maintain an armed populace to protect against domestic threats, tyrannical domestic govts and protection from outside invasion, then to me being as well armed as the govt is logical.

The same logic applies to the "assault weapon" argument. I always ask the anti-gunners "wasn't the british brown bess the assault weapon of the revolution". The brown bess was the standard issued infrantry rifle to the crown and by the colonial army. Of course the militias used their kentucky long rifles. But logic would dictate that the brown bess was the assualt rifle of the day.

I want to be as well armed or better than my enemy and if that entails having an RPG... Well the 2nd amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and i'm hardly a wacko.

Lake Worth FL
Username hidden
(7207 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I thought we just got done agreeing that death rates by cars and guns is a false comparison.

Doctors and guns are much better...;-)

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
We are in substantial agreement on that point.

I have no problem with the ownership of firearms, with reasonable restrictions. And restrictions should generally be up to local jurisdictions.

I actually happen to agree that the country should enforce the current laws, rather than pass any more restrictions.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Doctors kill more people in the united states than guns do to. about 90000 people a year die due to medical malpractice. Maybe we should be outlawing doctors.

Lake Worth FL
Username hidden
(7207 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I don't disagree and have even stated as much previously in this thread. The point of contention was when JNM said you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and that is a restriction on free speech, thereby implying that somehow we need more restrictions the RKBA and more gun control. That is an illogical supposition.

There is nothing preventing someone from yelling fire in a crowded theater. In fact, there are instances when that would actually be necessary, such as, if there really WAS a fire in a crowded theater.

The restrictions are essentially that the person shouting fire must be willing to accept the consequences for shouting fire when there really isn't one.

Same applies to the 2nd amendment. If you use a gun for illegal purposes, you are already subject to the consequences.

Requiring a license for using a gun (as you asserted is required for driving a car) would be like requiring a license for people choosing to exercise their first amendment protected right of free speech. It doesn't make sense. It's a right, not a controlled privilege.

Banning firearms is like requiring people to have their mouths stitched shut to ensure they don't yell fire in a crowded theater. Again, doesn't pass the litmus test of logic.

Please tell me TBR, what actions are you concerned about from law abiding gun owners that are not already covered under existing legislation? If they murder someone with a gun, they are already subject to criminal prosecution. If they rob someone at gunpoint or perform some other illegal act with a firearm, they are again subject to criminal prosecution.

There are already sufficient restrictions on the use of firearms, arguably far more than there needs to be, considering that you've already acknowledged that death by firearm is a relatively insignificant occurrence considering your gobbledygook ivory tower mathematical calculations.

Goose Creek SC
Username hidden
(1690 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Nice. So you basically agree, as I stated, that the two should not be compared, and yet you compare them.

As to the ammunition, the only stat I could find is by an ammunition manufacturer who state that there was 8-10 billion rounds of small arms ammunition sold in the US in 2002. So 14 billion uses is probably overstating, using your definition of use.

http: // www*policeone*com/police-products/firearms/accessories/ammunition/press-releases/90639/

So, lets get on to your main discussion. I posted before that all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are restricted. None of them are unconditional.

There are restrictions on speech, free assembly, religion, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and all of the other rights. The only Supreme Court case specifically addressing the Second Amendment came down on the side of regulation.

You may not think they should be there, but they are. Smarter people than you and me and Dan have decided it should be so.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(17357 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 ... More 
Start   5351 to 5360 of 5723   End
TOPIC: Guns Guns and More Guns