To what extent to you support the 1st and 2nd amendment?

[Vandeervecken]

A hammer is a tool. A gun is for killing.

A gun may indeed kill, though it is not its only task, but it is also a tool. Remember a hammer is nothing more than a refined club. The first clubs were for what? Killing. A gun is a refined sling. The fact that something can kill does not make it a tool. What makes it a tool is if it is something designed and/or used to make some task easier. Guns clearly are a tool. As is a sword, a knife, a club, a spear and many other things that can kill.

You can't win a guerilla war with a conventional army.

History laughs at this claim. As does anyone educated in history.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I have a rule, if I have opened three new windows and still not found backing for what you are claiming, I don't believe it is there. It most certainly is not there in any usable form to use as a cite of fact.

A bunch of unbacked claims is just so much hooey.

Define "automatic,". I'm also curious as to why you would ban hollow-points? You know they are far less likely, when they miss their intended target as happens, to penetrate walls and hurt innocents.

I use them in my handguns (I use a brand called hydroshock.). My home defense shotgun is loaded with two flechette rounds (will not go through interior walls and get the kid in the next room) followed by 48 alternating sabot slugs and 00 Buckshot shells. Do you think these do less damage than a hollow point round?

Under each claim is a link. If it isn't under it then the claim applies to the last link provided.

By automatic I mean SMGs/Uzis, AKs, m16s, etc.. I see no reason for one to have those since a glock or Baretta will be good enough.

I don't like hollow tips because the tip breaks off when it makes contact and has a higher chance of killing the guy. Something that most people won't find nice on their conscious. Besides, I'd rather see a criminal in prison then dead because that way you can come visit him everyday and annoy him
:lol: .

I have nothing against an adult having a handgun and actually support a law that trains kids on the proper use of a gun, but the thing is that there is a tiny chance that you'll actually be robbed or your house will be broken into. Most of the people that are packing some heat live in rural areas and have never known anyone in there area who has been robbed.

Alot of people who support guns say that you'll be more protected if someone rushes you with a knife. This is highly unusual because most criminals have a motive and don't kill just for thew sake of it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Because of the 1st amendment and several relevant court rulings. The press has even a more wide latitude than the people at large. Remember, if a person is committing crime, and the press exposes it, they are harmed, but it is most certainly not something they can take action legally for.

THAT'S a wonderful argument. Of course, a top secret document listing future battle plans isn't a crime, nor is the battle itself, so your analogy falls down heavily there. And of course, persons committing crimes don't have a reasonable expectation of secrecy from anyone, let alone the national media, so it falls down there, too.

Then again, it's not even against to law to report crime in the media.

Of course, people ARE harmed when a battle plan is revealed prematurely. If nothing else, the people of the nation have lost the time and expense that went to developing the plan, and perhaps the cost of staging the event, not to mention the very real harm to very real people that can come as a result.

Yeah, your analogy fell down a whole flight of stairs, a virtual escalator, even.

I make the assertion that not all harm is actionable and that the Constitution and Courts give the press a VERY wide set of protections.

So NOW you're changing your tune and saying that perhaps, maybe, a little teensy bit, that some restrictions on "freedom" of speech are legitimate.

Gee. That's what I've been saying.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Under each claim is a link. If it isn't under it then the claim applies to the last link provided.

Well I spent several minutes looking and not once did I find a claim that backed what you claimed it did. In other words, all you had was a link top a partisan clearinghouse. Worthless to support your claims.

By automatic I mean SMGs/Uzis, AKs, m16s, etc.. I see no reason for one to have those since a glock or Baretta will be good enough.

You have no idea what automatic means in relation to a firearm do you?

Good enough for what?

I don't like hollow tips because the tip breaks off when it makes contact and has a higher chance of killing the guy. Something that most people won't find nice on their conscious. Besides, I'd rather see a criminal in prison then dead because that way you can come visit him everyday and annoy him
:lol: .

Hollow-points, not Hollow-tips. LOL I really have a hard time taking seriously the claims of someone who clearly demonstrates a total lack of knowledge on the subject. By the way the tips do not break off of hollow-tips. Hollow point bullets "mushroom" upon impact creating a wide wound channel that increases the chance of a quick put down. The also do not penetrate walls well and kill innocents. Certain modern ones have shaped the chamber in the end so as to create a maximum displacement of bodily fluids creating an internal wave of such fluids that does massive organ damage. That is what I load in my handguns. If I am to the point I am shooting, I am shooting until they are dead. I would not lose a moments sleep about it either.

I have nothing against an adult having a handgun and actually support a law that trains kids on the proper use of a gun, but the thing is that there is a tiny chance that you'll actually be robbed or your house will be broken into. Most of the people that are packing some heat live in rural areas and have never known anyone in there area who has been robbed.

More nonsense.

Alot of people who support guns say that you'll be more protected if someone rushes you with a knife. This is highly unusual because most criminals have a motive and don't kill just for thew sake of it.

I have never heard anyone but you make that scenario. Straw man alert.

 

[Vandeervecken]

THAT'S a wonderful argument. Of course, a top secret document listing future battle plans isn't a crime, nor is the battle itself, so your analogy falls down heavily there. And of course, persons committing crimes don't have a reasonable expectation of secrecy from anyone, let alone the national media, so it falls down there, too.

Then again, it's not even against to law to report crime in the media.

Of course, people ARE harmed when a battle plan is revealed prematurely. If nothing else, the people of the nation have lost the time and expense that went to developing the plan, and perhaps the cost of staging the event, not to mention the very real harm to very real people that can come as a result.

Once again though without a declaration of war there is nothing the government can do about that. Tough. You want a war, maybe you should actually ask for a war instead of trying to do it on the cheap.

Yeah, your analogy fell down a whole flight of stairs, a virtual escalator, even.

No, not really. You keep saying that any harm is actionable. I merely gave an example where that was clearly not the case and nobody could argue. Those destroying your claim.

So NOW you're changing your tune and saying that perhaps, maybe, a little teensy bit, that some restrictions on "freedom" of speech are legitimate.

Gee. That's what I've been saying.

Not now nor have I never changed my claim nor said there were NO restrictions on the press. Try again. I have merely responded to your initial scenario, and the several revisions you have tried to make as each one is shot down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By automatic I mean SMGs/Uzis, AKs, m16s, etc.. I see no reason for one to have those since a glock or Baretta will be good enough.

The military uses these weapons.
If the militia is to resist/assist the military, the the right to arms necessarily protects them. That you dont have a reason to own one doesnt mean there isnt a reason.

I don't like hollow tips because the tip breaks off when it makes contact and has a higher chance of killing the guy.

Hollowpoints dont work that way. The hollow cavity in the bullet helps expansion by exterting hydraulic force on the inside of the cavity, forcing the surrounding material outward -- making a bigger wound channel. Bogger wound channel = better chance of killing the target -- and when you;re shooting at someone, you better be trying to kill them.

(Note that as far as hansguns go, you need a big as wound channel as you can get, as that channel is the only premanent damage to the target. Rifle ammunition will go through a person at supersonic speeds, causing a large, permanent shock area, whcoih, naturally, means more permanent damage. This is why rifle ammo is many times more powerful than handgun ammo).

Most of the people that are packing some heat live in rural areas and have never known anyone in there area who has been robbed.

Think there's a correlation there?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
How would the government break ANY amendment? Well how about passing and attempting to enforce legislation in direct contravention of that amendment? One would think that was obvious to any thinking citizen.

Sadly the number of federal, state, and local laws that do just that vis a vis the second amendment are legion. We are whittling away at them slowly, but they keep trying to heap more upon them.

Your talking to the wrong guy here. I don't give a rats ass what they do to the 2nd Amendment. I don't care if they ban them all and you guys cry like little babies. I could careless about guns.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
An assault weapon? A meaningless phrase conjured by the petty tyrants who would deny us our rights. Can you even define what an assault weapon is? If I sneak up behind you and hit you with a wrench, is not that wrench an assault weapon? Is my M-1940 Russian Battle Rifle an assault weapon? Is my M-1893 Nagent? How about my Enfiled Mk-IV British Battle Rifle? All are current or former front line main arms for the Army of a major nation. How about my Apache-77 .22 plinking rifle? Would that be an assault weapon? My Remington Marine Special shotgun? Our troops carry those. How about my USAS-12? Is that an assault weapon?

If you cannot define the term accurately, should you bandy it about?

But I will operate under the assumption you mean front line selectable fire rifles. The answer is for the reasons the 2nd was written. As a vaccination against tyranny and brigandry. If all else fails, as the tools to arise and fight the government or lawless mobs. (As someone who lived through the Detroit riots of the 1960's remembering full well all the teens and adults in our neighborhood heavily armed showing themselves and successfully encouraging the rioters to move to another neighborhood I can assure you it works.)

Besides, it is our right. Who needs any rights is really what you are arguing.

As per Canada, it is nearly uniform in its population demographics and largely rural. They do not have the insane drug war like we do either that is the engine that fuels most of the violence in society today just as prohibition did during the depression. You might also note that all of Canada contains less people than California does, much less our entire nation. Again very few of those are urban population at that, where the majority of our nation's violence occurs too. Apples and oranges.

A wrench can be used for construction. An assault weapon is for nothing but destruction.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your talking to the wrong guy here. I don't give a rats ass what they do to the 2nd Amendment. I don't care if they ban them all and you guys cry like little babies. I could careless about guns.

So...
When the Bush/Cheney administratiuon declares martial law in December 2008, nullifying Hillary's election and declaring they will stay in power until the 'crisis' that is the War on Terror is over -- what are you going to use to overthrow their newly formed Fascist government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

A wrench can be used for construction. An assault weapon is for nothing but destruction.

All the hunters, collectors and target shooters that have and use these 'assault weapons'would be very surprised to hear that.

But, in any case -- the 2nd amendment is there because, sometimes, people need to kill people. What better for than a weapon whose 'only puiurpose is to kill people'?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
You might also look into the American Revolutionary War, where a rag tag group of randomly armed irregulars held off the most powerful military the world had yet seen long enough for us to develop a regular army. You might note even after the regular army was raised our best troops were still irregulars like the Green Mountain Boys and Sharp's Shooters.

If the US government wants your pea-shooter, their gonna take it.
Just look at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the US government wants your pea-shooter, their gonna take it. Just look at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Just look at Lexington and Concorde.
And Vietnam.
And Afghanistan.
And Iraq.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
So...
When the Bush/Cheney administratiuon declares martial law in December 2008, nullifying Hillary's election and declaring they will stay in power until the 'crisis' that is the War on Terror is over -- what are you going to use to overthrow their newly formed Fascist government?

That will be a bad thing if it happens. I don't see if there is anything we could do about it to stop it small arms fire when they have Cobra gunships and Warthogs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That will be a bad thing if it happens. I don't see if there is anything we could do about it to stop it small arms fire when they have Cobra gunships and Warthogs.

Seems to have worked well enough for other people ( who need not be mentioned again).

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
All the hunters, collectors and target shooters that have and use these 'assault weapons'would be very surprised to hear that.

But, in any case -- the 2nd amendment is there because, sometimes, people need to kill people. What better for than a weapon whose 'only puiurpose is to kill people'?

That's the problem. Were a nation of killers.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
Seems to have worked well enough for other people ( who need not be mentioned again).

Your gonna stop an Abrams tank? You watch too much TV.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your gonna stop an Abrams tank? You watch too much TV.

Tell me:
In Iraq, were more Abrams destroyed by the Iraqi Army before the fall of Baghdad, or by the insurgents after, say, July 2003?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's the problem. Were a nation of killers.

There are times when people need to kill other people.
That need transcends national boundaries.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
Tell me:
In Iraq, were more Abrams destroyed by the Iraqi Army before the fall of Baghdad, or by the insurgents after, say, July 2003?

Don't change the subject. Just answer the question (if you got the stones).

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
There are times when people need to kill other people.
That need transcends national boundaries.

I would see the need if our shores were breached by a significant army. I don't see the need for us to go around the world being the big bully on the block.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't change the subject. Just answer the question (if you got the stones).

I'm not changing the subject. I'm directly address your 'question'.

In 1991, the Iraqi regular army killed zero M1 Abrams.
In 2003, they killed a handful - 6, I believe.

The insurgents have been able to kill at least 10.

So, tell us again why a lightly-armed force of irregulars can't kill Abrams?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would see the need if our shores were breached by a significant army. I don't see the need for us to go around the world being the big bully on the block.

Interesting how your statement wanders well away from the conversation at hand. Non-sequitur, anyone?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
I'm not changing the subject. I'm directly address your 'question'.

In 1991, the Iraqi regular army killed zero M1 Abrams.
In 2003, they killed a handful - 6, I believe.

The insurgents have been able to kill at least 10.

So, tell us again why a lightly-armed force of irregulars can't kill Abrams?

Look, I asked my question first. You f_cking answer it! This conversation will not go any farther until you do. I'm not going to play these little bullshit word games with you, KCConservative or oldreliable67 any longer. You guys are just playing word games. And I'm not going there any more. Answer my god-damn question, Jack, then I'll answer yours.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Your talking to the wrong guy here. I don't give a rats ass what they do to the 2nd Amendment. I don't care if they ban them all and you guys cry like little babies. I could careless about guns.

In other words you don't care about rights. A sad thing to admit.

 

[Vandeervecken]

A wrench can be used for construction. An assault weapon is for nothing but destruction.

That would not make it any less a tool, even if it were true, which it is not.