Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I call BS on that-lots of gun haters want to ban hunting how can you support "legitimate self defense" if you think honest people can be limited to 7 rounds 5 rounds, 3 rounds (Bloomturd's proposal one night on Night Line) etc
tell me why my argument that we should clearly allow all honest citizens of age and clean backgrounds to own the same defensive weapons cops have is improper
and how can a governmental entity honestly say that the stuff our tax dollars arms our civilian LEOs with "has not legitimate use" in the same society when owned by other civilians-many of whom are far better trained than cops (many of whom are not exactly in the front lines of crime fighting)
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?In the hands of the American people, so that if necessary they can organized into a well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state.
It's true you can someone against or for anything, but these "gun haters" are small in number. Don't be too literal.
And I've already addressed the cop question. Different job, different expectations, so they need more than you and me. You're drifting a bit, trying to just throw a bunch of silliness up. Go back over my argument.
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?
It has to do with the post I was responding to.what does that have to do with regulating an inalienable right of the citizens
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?
Not really since there is no regulation in what you describe since there is no governing body to decide if said officer core is well educated, discaplined, orderly, or even competent. What you describe is self-regulation as defined by the militia itself, which may be anything but "well-regulated" but still considering itself "well-regulated." Shirley, there is a more clearly defined and enforceable description of "well-regulated militia."Once formed into a militia, they were to be regulated by a well educated officer core. Regulated as in disciplined and orderly.
Different meaning than what you are implying.
I wonder if I'll get a 'gun-grab' service ribbon for taking your gun away....
Also seems your meaning is different from that of the Constitution, which stipulates the federal government regulates the militia.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?
you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of lethal confrontations and the advantage of an instigator has over someone who has to react. If anything those protecting their homes and businesses should have heavier and more effective weapons than cops because homeowners and business owners almost always are reacting to an attack rather than choosing the time and place to start a gun fight
I still can't get over the fact I've never had to have a gun. Never knew anyone who did. And know statistically, dogs work better. And nothing works better than being smart. Sorry, I don't really buy your argument at all.
To clarify, I think most people would hide them.
If you hide them, they are no good to you, when you really need them. What must we resort to the use of bows and arrows and crossbows? I am pretty good with my crossbow, and it has a red dot sight, but it is hard to reload quickly. So I suppose I need to buy at least 5 more crossbows for home defense from criminals.
I've had to use one of my guns to protect my dogs. Any Coyote that gets that close to them has to be Rabid and it was better for me to shoot it than let it nearer to my dogs.
I didn't mean in some sort of hidden panel or obscure location, just that people would claim to not have them and keep them out of sight. It might make them slightly less accessible, but if they were outlawed that would really be the only option. If you were to openly store, transport, or carry them they would be taken and you would most likely go to jail.
Not sure where you're from, but Virginia allows concealed carry permits. I had a ccw for years, just so I could carry a weapon in the truck, but since I used to work for the government, I was never allowed to carry in the vehicle. I eventually just let my ccw lapse and never renewed, mainly because Obama got re-elected. Virginia is an open-carry state, as well, and right now, I don't see any of the 23 executive actions affecting anything in Virginia.
Again this is just a what if, asking what people would do if a full ban ever took place. Such a ban would outlaw guns, so the way you carry would not matter. This poll has nothing to do the current legislation or executive orders.
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
Also seems your meaning is different from that of the Constitution, which stipulates the federal government regulates the militia.
Now that is a new one on me.
Here is the text:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Where does it specify that the Federal Government is the one doing the regulating?
Put your money where your mouth is, go buy a machine gun. **** the Hughes Amendment, right? You'll do what you want anyway. Who cares if the Fed says you have to have a Class-3 tax stamp and registration, right? You won't comply. They can't stop you. Go buy an AR15, modify it and post a pic here.I won't comply. Toss whatever dumbass flag you want.
Yeah that's why pro-gun put up such a huge fuss in 1987 and refused to comply with the Hughes Amendment. That's why no one registered their assault rifles and machine guns after 1987. That's why today no one gets a Class-3 to have an assault rifle or machine gun, everyone just does what they want.Toss all you want, Jerry. You are assuming (and you know what they say when someone assumes!) that all people are ignorant and spineless. That is a huge mistake. I believe our government would probably agree with you... that will be their downfall if it comes to blows.
I'm also confused about what 'internet tough guys' is supposed to mean, since it seems you are playing that card yourself... since you're pretty certain people will roll over and give what is rightfully theirs to the big daddy government.
You underestimate people - and that is dangerous.
If you don't want to be raped, you have to be willing to shoot a rapist. If you don't want your home burglarized you have to be willing to shoot an intruder. If you don't want to be assaulted in a road-rage incident, you have to be willing to shoot someone braking your car window.In answer to the Poll Questions: NO! Not only NO!, but HELL NO!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?