A new ACW..

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-

I just think there are more important stands to take against government policies than to worry about the government denying you the right to maintain an arsenal in your house. Really, in some senses it's not that much different than complaining that you aren't allowed to own a rocket launcher or whatever. Who the hell needs one? I'm not against self defense. A pistol is fine but what does anyone need a "military style weapon" for? Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Mundy

You're assuming I buy weapons for the purpose of defense, or starting some kind of revolt.  Perhaps, I simply enjoy shooting them and reloading ammunition for them.  It has nothing to do with feeling secure or setting up a personal bunker.

Your need do decide what I "need" is completly irrevelant.  I suppose that because you can't understand, nobody else is supposed to understand, either.

Ed-

I'd enjoy shooting and reloading a recoiless rifle. Does that mean I should be allowed to buy one at my local recoiless rifle dealer? I promise I'll never use it in anger and I'll be sure to keep it locked up so it doesn't fall into the "wrong" hands. If you check the FBI website I'm sure you'll find that they are relatively safe since probably no one in 2011 used a recoiless rifle to murder anyone. I'll always keep it pointed toward the ground when toting it down the street in public. I'm responsible and law-abiding, just check my record, no felonies, never done illegal drugs of any kind, maybe a couple speeding tickets. I personally see no reason I shouldn't be allowed to have one. I certianly don't want others telling me what I can and can't have, and especially not the government. If everyone carried a recoiless rifle people would get accustomed to it and stop being afriad of them. No one would dare break into my house knowing I have a RR (and of course claymore mines at each window and door would further ensure my personal safety). And 10 years from now when someone says, "why does anyone need a RR", chijohnaok would be able to cite the time I incinerated a guy breaking into my house with my RR, proving conclusively that RRs aren't "overkill" for self defense.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Why does one need a purpose?  I don't have to justify owning one to the government.  The government has no business dictating to me what I "need" or "don't need".

Why does one need an automobile capable of exceeding any speed limit in the country?

Having a rifle does not mean that one is some deranged lunatic, like you seem to be implying.

Ed-

I just think there are more important stands to take against government policies than to worry about the government denying you the right to maintain an arsenal in your house. Really, in some senses it's not that much different than complaining that you aren't allowed to own a rocket launcher or whatever. Who the hell needs one? I'm not against self defense. A pistol is fine but what does anyone need a "military style weapon" for? Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.

Certainly "freedom of speech" is also a complicated matter. But largely I believe a person should be allowed to say almost whatever they want so long as it doesn't do some kind of exorbitant damage to the public or whatever. I mean, do I have "freedom of speech" to commit treason or espionage against my own country? Do I have freedom of speech to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Aparently the Supreme court didn't think so back during WWI when some anarchist (forget the name and everything) protested American involvement in Europe. The Supreme court likened the anarchist's protest to "yelling fire in a crowded theater". I mean if minimizing one right of the people opens the door for totalitarianism then we should probably have been a dictatorship long ago.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.

You are just trying to obfuscate the issue with something not even closely related to the same thing, other than you think that not being able to own any weapon of your choosing violates the 2nd amendment.

Also, Gary is 100% correct in stating that it is a matter of degrees in regard to rocket launchers and an arsenal. The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms. Well, how about nuclear arms? It has arms right in the name. It's a weapon. If you don't think citizens should be able to get those, then you are simply drawing the line at a different location. Heck, we don't even want other countries to get certain types of weapons, and they are not even covered by the constitution.

[Mundy]

Actually you can. Just pay the NFA tax stamp

RR

More hyperbole as usual. Apparently owning a RR is exactly the same as owning a rifle.

I get it, Gary. Personal liberties are simply a quaint anachronism to you.

There are groups who like shooting Civil War cannons. I'm sure you'd be first in line to put an end to that travesty.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt
The thread was officially over with the Hitler quote as far as I am concerned.

So then why are you still posting in it? I think you've expressed the 'cut of your jib' now...

There is no real discussion here. It's basically the same few posting the same stuff ad nauseum till there is just one position represented, then a congratulatory pat on the back for having a great discussion.

...you're patting Gary on the back for a great discussion and reiterating your position ad nauseum. [:D]

[parusski]

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: parusski

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!

warspite1

I don't support the Hammers - I'm a Spurs fan - but for the sake of this argument I am prepared to switch allegiance.

[parusski]

warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.

I AM SCREAMING HERE. There are millions of Hammers out there, owned by law-abiding citizens. But if we can remove just ONE from the hands of a lunatic then the CHILDREN are safe. And I was not talking about the new McDonald's sandwich, the McHammer. But now, by GOD, it must be banned because, since it has the word hammer in it, some deviant might try to kill a CHILD with one. BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

Chickenhead sputtered

NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!

DA, all HAMMERS banned. This is as sensible as banning any gun. Prove it is not.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: parusski
BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

So by this logic, when I went to McDonald's I would order a "burg" to leave out the offending letters?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Actually you can. Just pay the NFA tax stamp

RR

More hyperbole as usual. Apparently owning a RR is exactly the same as owning a rifle.

I get it, Gary. Personal liberties are simply a quaint anachronism to you.

There are groups who like shooting Civil War cannons. I'm sure you'd be first in line to put an end to that travesty.

I remember passing by a VA lodge or whatever on the way to work many years ago which had a 3in DP gun in the front lawn. Not fireable I assume, though I'm not sure. I enjoyed seeing a piece of recent history there. I'm sure there are people out there who own a few rocket launchers and maybe have show on the history channel or something. Hopefully RRs don't become common in any way. Civil War re-enactments are fun and educational. I doubt Civil war cannons make very practical toys for the lunatic fringe. But yeah, if lunatics or street gangs started to use Civil War cannons in school shootings I would be for stricter controls on them. And if Charlton Heston got up on a stage and declared "out of my cold dead hands" regarding his RR, I'd be a little concerned for the guy's mental health. I couldn't see anything rational in dying over the right to own one.

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.

You are just trying to obfuscate the issue with something not even closely related to the same thing, other than you think that not being able to own any weapon of your choosing violates the 2nd amendment.

Also, Gary is 100% correct in stating that it is a matter of degrees in regard to rocket launchers and an arsenal. The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms. Well, how about nuclear arms? It has arms right in the name. It's a weapon. If you don't think citizens should be able to get those, then you are simply drawing the line at a different location. Heck, we don't even want other countries to get certain types of weapons, and they are not even covered by the constitution.

A) I have not advocate laws to allow the ownership of "any weapon of your choosing". There are current limits in place with regards to things like automatic weapons and machine guns.

B) I do not favor individuals owning nuclear arms.

Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook, stole the weapons he used.

Has his mother taken commen sense steps like keeping her guns locked up in a safe, Lanza would not have had access to them.
This is even more relevant when one takes into consideration the reports that his mother was considering having him institutionalize due to his mental condition.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: parusski

warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.

I AM SCREAMING HERE. There are millions of Hammers out there, owned by law-abiding citizens. But if we can remove just ONE from the hands of a lunatic then the CHILDREN are safe. And I was not talking about the new McDonald's sandwich, the McHammer. But now, by GOD, it must be banned because, since it has the word hammer in it, some deviant might try to kill a CHILD with one. BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

Chickenhead sputtered

NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!

DA, all HAMMERS banned. This is as sensible as banning any gun. Prove it is not.

McHammer

Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.

Be a little hard to build much without hammers wouldn't it?

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: parusski

warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.

I AM SCREAMING HERE. There are millions of Hammers out there, owned by law-abiding citizens. But if we can remove just ONE from the hands of a lunatic then the CHILDREN are safe. And I was not talking about the new McDonald's sandwich, the McHammer. But now, by GOD, it must be banned because, since it has the word hammer in it, some deviant might try to kill a CHILD with one. BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

Chickenhead sputtered

NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!

DA, all HAMMERS banned. This is as sensible as banning any gun. Prove it is not.

What about the (Arm & Hammer) baking soda?
Ban or no ban?

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: parusski
BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

So by this logic, when I went to McDonald's I would order a "burg" to leave out the offending letters?

My Lord, I missed this. Due to the current climate-YES. You can only order a burg. That is the safe thing.

warpedspite.5 lamely wrote:

McHammer

Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon

There is no place for any logical arguments from anyone like you(we must be consistent with the gun control crowd logic), so if you continue making sensible arguments I will simply shout you down. And I will use ever increasingly lame positions, but I will mainly say--YOU DON'T NEED A HAMMER ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED A RIFLE THAT CAN FIRE MORE THAN 7, 9 OR 10 ROUNDS.

I don't care about logic, or the 1st or 2nd amendment. I only care about sounding good and protecting the chi'ren.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: parusski
BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

So by this logic, when I went to McDonald's I would order a "burg" to leave out the offending letters?

My Lord, I missed this. Due to the current climate-YES. You can only order a burg. That is the safe thing.

warpedspite.5 lamely wrote:

McHammer

Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon

There is no place for any logical arguments from anyone like you(we must be consistent with the gun control crowd logic), so if you continue making sensible arguments I will simply shout you down. And I will use ever increasingly lame positions, but I will mainly say--YOU DON'T NEED A HAMMER ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED A RIFLE THAT CAN FIRE MORE THAN 7, 9 OR 10 ROUNDS.

I don't care about logic, or the 1st or 2nd amendment. I only care about sounding good and protecting the chi'ren.

warspite1

Well you lot are going on about the 1st and 2nd Amendment - what about the 5th Amendment?? I asked McHammer but he just said "The Fifth Amendment - no way - I ain't sayin' nothin'"

[parusski]

ALERT. :

I just learned that Julio González caused the deaths of 87 people in the Happy Land Fire(Bronx, New York City) on March 25, 1990. Mr. Gonzalez started the murderous conflagration using a plastic container filled with GASOLINE. I have also learned that both plastic containers and gasoline can be purchased, without any background checks or licensing.

I ask everyone, for the children, to ban both deadly substance NOW. After all, you don't need either. WALK dumb asses.