If you can afford it, sure, why not?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
40 Reasons guns should be banned
- Thread starter Pugs
- Start date
If you can afford it, sure, why not?
I would have to do some reading to look at any 18th century source material we have regarding the possession of cannon by individuals, by my inclination is to say that the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to posses small arms. I think small arms is what they mean by 'Arms', that seems to be what it has meant when reading Washington or Jefferson.
Does that mean the people should be permitted to own RPGs? Maybe it does. It would be interesting to see what Madison would have said.
It certianly means we can have bayonets, pistols, and Flash suppressors
.
Yes, but its not a good argument against the liberal fantasy of total gun control. You can't say you need a gun because they other guy has one. Once they take away all the guns, you shouldn't need one FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING YOURSELF AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE WITH GUNS.
Still does now, I hope.
I would argue that if you have a knife you are armed. So if you're allowed to have a knife, your constitutional rights are not being infringed. Well, I wouldn't argue that, but someone would, and it wouldn't be a bad point.
The government can take away lots of things ("legitimate government interest"), sometimes even constitutionally protected "needs."
The intent was, "we just won our independence with a minuteman militia." At the time, defending the country against foreign invaders meant having locals ready to grab their musket and muster. Nowadays, if the Chinese come at us, 40% of the population having a Glock in their sock drawer isn't going to do us a ton of good (IMHO).
torpedo0126
Member
First of all, why do so many people FREAK out if some asks something other than a friendly question. Also, I didn't say I supported that, I asked where do those people fall in the argument.
I believe there is a difference between making an analogy and making extreme comparisons. I think a good comparison between requiring all guns to have safeties and the like would be safety belts in cars...yes they do save lives. I would much rather have a cheap solution in preventing an accidental discharge than risk an unintentional injury. There are already enough people at recruit training who shoot their toes off even with safeties.
Again, I was just asking where the above argument falls in the 2nd amendment debate. I really don't know how you got this statement out of what I asked.
Relax man. I am a gun owner myself. I didn't feel threatened by the government taking my fingerprints. And I also feel comfortable with the government checking on addresses and SS## to make sure they are legal citizens and so that law enforcement can possibly trace a firearm back to its owner in case of theft/crime.
I'm beginning to think you might be part of some sort of paramilitary reactionary group. I wasn't aware of this. I went to wikipedia and did a little research. It seems the complaint is that unlicensed sellers and private buyers can make transactions at gun shows without checks or paperwork. However, a poll of prison inmates said that something like 2% of them obtained a gun at a gun show. I guess my problem with that it only takes a few people to pull off something like 9/11. I also think there is a big difference between buying a gun privately from a family member and being able to go to a gun show and just buy a gun from an unlicensed seller.
Okay thats it for me on this thread. I promise I'm not a pinko-commey.
I believe there is a difference between making an analogy and making extreme comparisons. I think a good comparison between requiring all guns to have safeties and the like would be safety belts in cars...yes they do save lives. I would much rather have a cheap solution in preventing an accidental discharge than risk an unintentional injury. There are already enough people at recruit training who shoot their toes off even with safeties.
Again, I was just asking where the above argument falls in the 2nd amendment debate. I really don't know how you got this statement out of what I asked.
Relax man. I am a gun owner myself. I didn't feel threatened by the government taking my fingerprints. And I also feel comfortable with the government checking on addresses and SS## to make sure they are legal citizens and so that law enforcement can possibly trace a firearm back to its owner in case of theft/crime.
I'm beginning to think you might be part of some sort of paramilitary reactionary group
. I wasn't aware of this. I went to wikipedia and did a little research. It seems the complaint is that unlicensed sellers and private buyers can make transactions at gun shows without checks or paperwork. However, a poll of prison inmates said that something like 2% of them obtained a gun at a gun show. I guess my problem with that it only takes a few people to pull off something like 9/11. I also think there is a big difference between buying a gun privately from a family member and being able to go to a gun show and just buy a gun from an unlicensed seller.Okay thats it for me on this thread. I promise I'm not a pinko-commey.
Fair play
You can actually have all that stuff... theres just a shit ton of hoops to jump through... I knew a guy that had a 203 with HE rounds. He paid a $200 tax for each one of them and a $200 tax to buy the 203. And there's plenty of guys out there with live artillery.
Right, because England doesn't have gun crime.
According to the SCOTUS, yes it does.
Wrong. It would be a horrible point. What if the government told you that you could blog about zombies, but you couldn't make any blog entires about the President, or Congress. Well they wouldn't be infringing on rights regarding zombies, but they would in other ways.
The person or the group with the most guns can ALWAYS take away things. Thats why it is said that the 2nd Amendment protects the other parts of the Constitution.
You sure about that? You really sure about that?
The authors of the Constitution KNEW that the militia didn't win the Revolution. Washington presided over the Convention and he disdained the Militia. Did a general distrust of standing armies exist? absolutely. Did the Framers feel the militia did more than it actually did during the Revolution? Most did. That being said the idea that the militia alone would save us from invasion is asinine, and most of the Framers knew that. This is the reason that the Army can exist, but has to be re approved every 2 years.
As to repelling an invasion, Admiral Yamamoto is often credited with saying: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." He may or may not have actually said it, but the point is clear: in a nation of riflemen an occupation force wages a war of attrition.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
+1.
If you're too stupid to operate a firearm safely and end up shooting yourself to death, then the human genepool just got stronger.
I also think all safety belt/helmet/[insert personal safety device] laws should be repealed. If you don't care about your self-preservation, then I don't care about your self preservation, and I damn sure don't want my tax money going to instilling a sense of self-preservation in you.
The fatal flaw in the gun control mind set is that the criminals will follow the law. "If we take away guns then you won't need them to defend yourself"... The problem is that criminals don't follow the law, by their definition. As pointed out, look at some other countries with "no" private gun ownership.
And for the argument about "unlicensed sellers" at gun shows, where do you draw the line? I think you honestly have no clue what they are talking about in reference to gun shows. Its not as if one of the guys there selling guns is unlicensed. Its the normal everyday people that go to a gun show wanting to sell one of their guns that usually make the "private sales" and thus are "unlicensed", yet legal, sellers. The same as if you wanted to sell a gun to a close friend or a relative. You can't make laws banning joe schmo from selling his gun to another joe schmo without also banning what you consider an innocent sale between family members. Do you really want to make guns something that once bought, can never be sold? 99% of guns bought at a gun show are bought at a table and therefore are subject to the same laws and checks that buying a gun at Bass Pro Shops would have. The gun show argument is a matter of ignorance. The same as the ban was on bayonet lugs... How many people have been bayonetted?...
And for the argument about "unlicensed sellers" at gun shows, where do you draw the line? I think you honestly have no clue what they are talking about in reference to gun shows. Its not as if one of the guys there selling guns is unlicensed. Its the normal everyday people that go to a gun show wanting to sell one of their guns that usually make the "private sales" and thus are "unlicensed", yet legal, sellers. The same as if you wanted to sell a gun to a close friend or a relative. You can't make laws banning joe schmo from selling his gun to another joe schmo without also banning what you consider an innocent sale between family members. Do you really want to make guns something that once bought, can never be sold? 99% of guns bought at a gun show are bought at a table and therefore are subject to the same laws and checks that buying a gun at Bass Pro Shops would have. The gun show argument is a matter of ignorance. The same as the ban was on bayonet lugs... How many people have been bayonetted?...
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Also if you have time read "More Guns Less Crime"
it is an evaluation of gun control using best practices from academia that are widely accepted throughout the social sciences community.
I believe its on the news every night (or should be. I've sworn off network news).
Precisely. Look at the Soviets and Afghanistan. They got their asses handed to them by a bunch of guys with AK's---half of them barely knew which end the bullets came out of. The United States civilian population would be one holy hell of a formidable opponent, especially when you consider how many are retired military or law enforcement.