I look forward to the day I look forward to the day you truly decide to move on with your life, 15ofthe19. But perhaps next time: Now, perhaps you know something about me that I don't, or perhaps you're merely sarcastic. Nonetheless, what's wrong with just asking the question? Why go hauling your attitude problem around?
Damn What is it with you and circles? You remind me of another poster who just can't seem to realize that you are supporting your opponents arguments with what you say. Here is the deal T: I am here to stay, and I am not intimidated by you, so if you really want to play this game get ready for a protracted fight. All of that aside: Your partner is an irresponsible gun owner; we both agree on that. Why are you following me around? It's not my fault that you can't support your position. And try and understand that it's not personal. I just don't understand this idea that you can't engage in open discourse without thinking that everyone is out to get you T. You have a lot to say on this forum, and much of it is profound, but whatever gave you the idea that you can't ever learn from another poster? I would say that is the ultimate bigoted attitude. You like to disparage me as an idiot, and granted I might not be able to outscore you on an IQ test, but surely you aren't such a legend in your own mind that you seriously believe that you can learn nothing from me? Your arrogance is not doing you any favors here.
Why are you mucking up another topic? How so? I'd love it you'd actually explain yourself for once. In the meantime, don't muck up yet another topic.
Er ... yeah, I guess so, Counsler This is an ... interesting point. There was a guy north of Seattle a few years ago and got drunk and cleaned his pistol and accidentally killed a toddler in the next apartment. He was not charged. According to law, I suppose he's a responsible gun owner. Something about the phrase, "well-regulated" goes here, but I'm more interested in your take on it.
Well first of all To own a gun, does not make you a part of any militia!. So the gov. deems a non-criminal as a "responsible gun owner" that is it's perogative, however that does not make the individual any part of an organised militia. Just a gun owner. There is a lot of information that can be gathered from the above sentence, and it also can be interpreted in many ways oviously with the government already infriging on our right to gun ownership. A well requlated militia. Does not mean any redneck with a gun. Beign necessary to the security of a free state. Means that the state, that is the gov. should not infringe in the right of citicens to organise, and have a regulated militia. http://www.michiganmilitia.com/ http://www.militiaofmontana.com/ http://www.mariettapa.com/marietta_militia.html the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Clearly means that any one wishing to own a gun has a right to do so!!. It is all apples and oranges, of course in our society today exists the element of a few bad apples, that is irresponsible people with guns, however this is not the wide general public, the few instances T. which you have experienced should not be starting point to judge the whole lot of them to be similar, for instance the guy in the apt, cleaning his gun should have gone to jail, for manslaughter my opinion. In the state of Texas parents are going to jail, for accidents caused by children with guns. A lot more can be said however I'm straped for time. Godless.
America is still responding to the acute frustration of the founding fathers: Hardly anyone had the guns or inclination to fight the Brits. It was a miracle we didn't wind up in hideous bondage like our tormented neighbors in Canada. This has resulted in a cultural blind spot for a political fundamental: Access/affinity for weapons is not a source of national stability. Availability of public weapons is instead a reliable and inversely proportional indicator of political stability. So don't worry bulletheads, in real crisis, weapons are littered everywhere you turn and see "cold dead hands" and if you wish you can hep yo self: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just a few notes from a non-American (if such may be permitted) As I suggested before, how exactly can any 'well regulated militia' be expected to take on the modern US armed forces? For those here who support the second I have to ask; Are you planning to lobby for private ownership of landmines, AAA, AT weapons and battlefield lasers? You really should if the second is as sacred as some seem to believe. Seems to me that the second is just a handy tool for the boys to keep their toys, it has no real meaning any longer. The revolution is a long time gone, perhaps it's time for America to be more honest about it's desire for gun ownership and stop skipping around with the idea that ownership is some sort of patriotic duty. On a more practical note, why is there such a disparity between states when it comes to gun law? An aquaintance of mine is staying with family in Arizona at the moment and he tells me that he now owns a .357 which he bought from a friend of his cousin. If you knew Wes Timmins you'd really would not want to give that boy a firearm. Still he says he loves America "the cokes so cheap!" he tells me. So whats the point of strict control in, say, NYC when a bus ride to Arizona buys you all the firepower you need? Of course the biggest question still remains, How come Americans shoot each other more often than citizens of other firearm loving nations? I would not presume to speak for tiassa but I think if you boys shot each other less then his attitude to gun control may be a little more forgiving. BTW Hey Hype you can thank the french in part for that. Bye Now Dee Cee
You goddam foreigners want us in the Crown of Creation to thank the FRENCH? You should be SILENCED. :fingering my Bushmaster:
If it wasn't for the french you'd still be eating roast beef dinners not those damn freedom friesPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Er ... yeah, I guess so, Counsler I'm just so damn smart. If he was not charged, then yes; in the eyes of the government he is a responsible gun owner. In my eyes I see it differently. The man should never be able to own a gun again, or be able to drink again. He should of spent time in prison as well. Guns are not well-regulated. If guns were well-regulated then that baby wouldn't of had a bullet hole put in it. If you have a DUI, or some kind of other alcohol related charge, then you shouldn't be able to own a gun. It’s that simple. Of course, when you say “well-regulated”, it makes me think of background checks and anti-gun laws.
This is really interesting. To be honest, I've never met someone with your experiences, Tiassa, so I never would have thought of that side. This issue is not a fence, it's a hill. Several sides, some steeper than others. Our culture, books, history, and entertainment have glorified the gun. And out politics has demonized it. Neither one is right. banning them or releasing the tide. I don't think we have to worry about the Armed Forces. Half of them would join the rebellion. There are old, but still viable airframes in Arizona. Give me a machine shop and a few good people, and I can have F-111s, F-4s, even A-10s flying. Munitions are not hard to manufacture, plenty of places around the country have the required facilities to build anti-tank missiles and such. Really, I think the thing we need most fear is the police. The Gestapo didn't use many tanks. But they did use terror. I might not be able to do much if Bush gets a Gestapo, but I know that if he tries the army, he will lose a large number of them. I joined the Air Force to serve my country. There's a line in the oath of enlistment that is very interesting: "I will support and defend the constitution of the United States form all enemies foriegn and domestic," emphasis added. If the government turns fascist, that means that my duty is to go against them. I'm sure that others would think the same, and would join. It would only take a few weeks until they find that the people are better armed than they think, because us military people are in it, too. My dad's 30-06 may not do much aagainst an Abrams, but I can load a maverick on an A-10, and that'll do plenty. I don't think that the army will be used against the people any time soon. Especially if they bring the draft back. So it is other dangers we must face. I don't think a secret police type thing would get past congress, but who knows. I found an article on another forum that I think is interesting: I figured I'd post the link to the original Experiences like yours, Tiassa, dictate a need to define "responsible." I'd say that she's not responsible. Checking for a criminal record is good, but you also need to consider first-timers. They have no record, but there could be indications that they may go bad in the future. I would gladly submit to a license to own, say the background check, plus a psychological profile(a questionare filled out with the other forms might work), a mandatory safety course for the class I'm getting the license for, and the waiting period. I don't see the need to license individual firearms beyond tracking stolen ones. I renew this license just like a drivers license(more often, I'd think), and I can buy all the guns I want that are on the license. Due to her drinking problem, Tiassa's partner wouldn't be eligible, you could get a court order saying she's not safe, if all else fails. The man who shot the child through the wall coudl be charged, because he would have been taught not to mess with the gun while cleaning it, and to make sure it's empty. Probably the "posse" could have similar action against them. Mostly it's our job to keep the rotten apple from spoiling the barrel. We have to protect our rights, and I see the battle being turned into a pissing contest on Capitol hill than people caring about them. I know I didn't adress some issues, but I need to go to bed. I'll see how much of my head gets bitten off tomorrow.
Re: Too many spaces in the line? They already are, in most cases. Here in Massachusetts, you have to attend a hunting safety course before you can get a Firearms ID card. You cannot own a gun without an FID card, not even a pellet gun. The course is basic common sense; i.e. "don't shoot shit when you're drunk", and other hints. Anybody with a modicum of common sense can pass it. I should know; I'm a volunteer instructor at a local range a weekend or two a month. Some people do fail it. I've always been a fence-sitter with the FID cards. On one hand, they're not anything daunting to obtain, and you need a license to drive, so it seems only natural that you should need to prove basic competence to own a firearm. On the other hand, cars aren't guaranteed access bereft of infringement in the Bill of Rights. Guns are. If you want to wax semantic you could argue that the FID system is an infringement on the 2nd amendment. There are four levels of FID in Massachusetts. Pistols and rifles with unlimited magazine capacity Pistols with magazines holding 10 rounds or less, and rifles with unlimited magazine capacity Pistols and rifles, each limited to 10 rounds of magazine capacity Rifles limited to 10 rounds of magazine capacity Class A is obviously the least restricting, but is also the most expensive and difficult to get. There are also special permits for concealed carry, owning a suppressor (silencer, if you're Hollywood), nostalgia licenses for owning military weapons from the days of yore, and machinegun licenses if you can prove you are a collector. I have a CCP. It cost $200 in fees and a more thorough background check, but thanks to a history I have with holding security clearances in both military and civilian life, it wasn't much of a problem. I also own two suppressors, each of which cost $250 to license with the BATF (which was $100 more than the suppressors themselves cost). I have been considering applying for a machinegun license because I have a functional M60E3 light machinegun in my work shop in a few pieces, but to put it together and be legit, I would need a license for it. The absurdity of these laws is evident by looking at the classes above. One of my favorite pistols is my Heckler & Koch Mark 23 .45. It has a 12 round magazine capacity, but it is only sold with 10 normally. Who the fuck cares if I have two extra cartridges in the magazine? Does that make me more dangerous than if I only had 10, and had to take four seconds to reach into a belt pouch and grab a full magazine? To some people, it does, yet anybody with a semblance of experience will tell you that magazine capacity doesn't mean shit, and a well-trained shooter could drop more targets with five rounds than a gang banger could with 30. Anyway, to make sure I answered your question, you need to be certified to own guns in many states already, and gun registration is mandatory everywhere. Edited to add: It's an issue of state's rights. You limeys taught us some centuries ago to harbor an almost ridiculous amount of distrust towards the Federal government, heh. If the feds can't tell the states to fall in lock-step behind everything they say, we don't have to go toss perfectly good tea in the drink.
Well Regulated Well, Tiassa was obviously never in the military. If he had been, I doubt that the meaning of "well regulated", as used in this context, would escape his comprehension. For those of you here who were not in the military, let me explain whar "well regulated" means when used in the sense of a military unit being so. I was a rifleman in the Marines for four years. Every rifle platoon in which I served was well-regulated. "Well regulated" meaning well trained, with each member of each fire team, each squad, knowing his job and being proficient at his duties. The officers and NCO's made sure that we knew our stuff. We responded immediately to commands. We knew our weapons. We were well trained in offensive and defensive tactics. We knew what we were doing and we functioned well as a unit. We were well regulated.
Thank you, Chuck Thank you, Chuck. You illustrate a very important facet of considering "Guns and the Second Amendment." How would you say your military regulation applies to the idea of a well-regulated militia insofar as the Second Amendment applies to the ownership of firearms as an unabridgeable right? Should every citizen wishing to keep and bear arms be required to go through this form of regulation?
Um, no. Um, no. It's my right to own a gun. It's my right to not join the army and not kill anyone to. Besides, what if I don't trust the government?
Chuck.. That will show them!! Well the prob. with Tiassa is that he/she is judging the few people that he knows, and what they are like with guns, and assumes all to be the same. He/she didn't mean a military unit, but a few irresponsible gun owners/hunters getting drunk before hunting or going and shooting for fun. The fact is that people like this do exist, and have given the private militia men a bad rap as dumb ass rednecks with guns, too much government propaganda I suppose. Godless. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well .... That part, I think I already figured out. I was hoping he could be more specific. Especially since I disagree with his assessment of the "prob". I actually think it can be cleared up quite easily, but that depends on whether he can tell me what his specific issue is on this occasion.
