Argument for 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]JD430 wrote:
tom63 wrote:

Legislators have no idea what they are legislating. What’s a barrel shroud?

She’s a moron.

That is an understatement.

Can anyone clarify for me what part of her 2005 bill actually protects law enforcement, or did she simply throw that in to try and garner the support of people who have attention spans that can’t make it past a single sentence. I have always been personally offended by lumping an anti-freedom bill into the same category as one designed to protect law enforcement.

If legislators want to protect us, they would make sure that we are supported when we do our jobs. Instead, they usually start running around like headless chickens when a cop has to pull a trigger on a miscreant. In fact, I will take it a step further.

I will be safer at work when more honest, decent Americans are allowed to carry arms to defend themselves(and maybe me). Universal CCW legislation is a real Law Enforcement Protection Act.

How do such worthless human beings get elected?[/quote]

It seems to me that the same people who whine and moan and call for the cops head when he honestly shoots someone want all the gun control to “protect” the police. These are the same clowns who support a cop killer like Mumia Jamal also.

82

[quote]tom63 wrote:
JD430 wrote:
tom63 wrote:

Legislators have no idea what they are legislating. What’s a barrel shroud?

She’s a moron.

That is an understatement.

Can anyone clarify for me what part of her 2005 bill actually protects law enforcement, or did she simply throw that in to try and garner the support of people who have attention spans that can’t make it past a single sentence. I have always been personally offended by lumping an anti-freedom bill into the same category as one designed to protect law enforcement.

If legislators want to protect us, they would make sure that we are supported when we do our jobs. Instead, they usually start running around like headless chickens when a cop has to pull a trigger on a miscreant. In fact, I will take it a step further.

I will be safer at work when more honest, decent Americans are allowed to carry arms to defend themselves(and maybe me). Universal CCW legislation is a real Law Enforcement Protection Act.

How do such worthless human beings get elected?

It seems to me that the same people who whine and moan and call for the cops head when he honestly shoots someone want all the gun control to “protect” the police. These are the same clowns who support a cop killer like Mumia Jamal also.

[/quote]

If we’re trying to protect cops, getting rid of no-knock warrants should rank pretty high on the to-do list, shouldn’t it?

tldr for the article:

-no knock warrant issued with no case specific evidence (even altered after the fact with a fucking pencil). The wararnt does not have his name, address, anything, and the type of drug the raid was for was altered after the fact.

-home owner thinks he’s being burglarized or something (article has a bias towards the victim of the police here, so take what the victim thought as a grain of salt, but that seems to be the case) and reaches for a broken gun. Cops open fire

the rest of the article goes on about police brutality (alleged anyways), so i won’t bother summarizing. When I first found this article on Fark there were 3-4 other stories that were thrown up in the discussion of people hearing doors and windows being broken down and they opened fire on police with NO KNOWLEDGE they were police, as a no-knock warrant does not require them to identify themselves.

83

[quote]Magnate wrote:
If we’re trying to protect cops, getting rid of no-knock warrants should rank pretty high on the to-do list, shouldn’t it?

tldr for the article:

-no knock warrant issued with no case specific evidence (even altered after the fact with a fucking pencil). The wararnt does not have his name, address, anything, and the type of drug the raid was for was altered after the fact.

-home owner thinks he’s being burglarized or something (article has a bias towards the victim of the police here, so take what the victim thought as a grain of salt, but that seems to be the case) and reaches for a broken gun. Cops open fire

the rest of the article goes on about police brutality (alleged anyways), so i won’t bother summarizing. When I first found this article on Fark there were 3-4 other stories that were thrown up in the discussion of people hearing doors and windows being broken down and they opened fire on police with NO KNOWLEDGE they were police, as a no-knock warrant does not require them to identify themselves.

[/quote]
More good reasons why this “war” to protect us from ourselves needs to end.

84

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Magnate wrote:
If we’re trying to protect cops, getting rid of no-knock warrants should rank pretty high on the to-do list, shouldn’t it?

tldr for the article:

-no knock warrant issued with no case specific evidence (even altered after the fact with a fucking pencil). The wararnt does not have his name, address, anything, and the type of drug the raid was for was altered after the fact.

-home owner thinks he’s being burglarized or something (article has a bias towards the victim of the police here, so take what the victim thought as a grain of salt, but that seems to be the case) and reaches for a broken gun. Cops open fire

the rest of the article goes on about police brutality (alleged anyways), so i won’t bother summarizing. When I first found this article on Fark there were 3-4 other stories that were thrown up in the discussion of people hearing doors and windows being broken down and they opened fire on police with NO KNOWLEDGE they were police, as a no-knock warrant does not require them to identify themselves.

More good reasons why this “war” to protect us from ourselves needs to end.

[/quote]

I’d agree. I don’t know if I would totally get rid of those warrants, but they need to be right. You can’t make an address mistake on these. but overall I agree with you.

85

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Defekt wrote:
My point was that if anyone in that store had a gun, not nearly as many people would have died. I probably should have written that.

I’m sorry, but having a gun within reach of someone who could get mad, not think, and pop it off is not a good idea. I’m all for protection of gun ownership, but I’m still against it being legal to carry in public without some major restrictions.

There are just too many people with anger problems and too many shitty days.

Better outlaw knives too. Anyone with that kind of anger issue will have no problem substituting one for a gun.

Knifing someone is infinitely harder and much less likely to be lethal.[/quote]

You’ve obviously never had any Marine Corps training. A properly trained individual with a knife, could sneak through your entire house, kill everyone in it without making a sound, and then exit the structure with no one ever knowing he was there besides multiple corpses.

The instrument itself does not represent lethality-- it is the individual with said instrument.

World

86

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Knifing someone is infinitely harder and much less likely to be lethal.

Stab twice? If you want them dead and you’ve already stabbed them once they will be dead if you decide to follow through. Same with if you shoot them once, hit them with a car once, etc etc etc.

Err… getting a knife out of a concealed place on your body is one heck of a lot harder than taking out a gun. And stabbing someone is a lot harder than pulling a trigger.

If guns were easy to get, do you really think every little old lady in NYC is going to be carrying? No, it’ll be the gang bangers and thugs that get the guns. That’d be lovely.

I’m all for guns to protect the home, but without special circumstances, carry in public is generally a bad idea.

Before the “bad guys will still get guns” argument comes up: How about we actually hold the gun companies responsible for once, eh? If a guy is buying 200 hand guns a month, and he doesn’t have a selling permit, something is obviously up.[/quote]

I am absolutely honest when I say this. You are a dangerous individual. What you say and thus far seem to represent is an absolute danger to the American people, our principles, and our way of life.

On the other hand, maybe you are a hard learner. Maybe it will take one of your friends dying in a gun free zone at the hands of a psychopath for you to learn. If that’s what it takes, it sucks you’re that hard-headed.

Know this though, if I’m in that gun free zone, expect that psychopath to fire one round, if I allow him to get it off.

Something else that might bother you, there’s a damned lot more people like me than there are like you. Keep that in mind.

World

87

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Magnate wrote:
own 2 rifles.

You do?! How do you manage to control the sudden freak urge to shoot someone when you get pissed?[/quote]

You think he’s bad news?!?!?! lol

I’m surprised I haven’t been labeled the next Charles Whitman for my arsenal… roughly 30 rifles, two shotguns, 6 pistols (4 1911s), and 5 revolvers…

And bet your ass I have ammo for every single one of them…hahaha!!!

World

88

[quote]Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m against no-restriction.

I think we can all agree on that.[/quote]

I don’t think we can. I certainly cannot and will not. Ever.

The Second Amendment didn’t specify why, how, or when a citizen should be allowed to use his firearms. It simply stated that every free man has the right to keep and bear arms. There was no mention of restriction.

If I want to own a full auto, why the hell shouldn’t I be able to? I have fired thousands of full auto rounds in the Marine Corps, I’d say I am certainly qualified to own one privately. But no, some dickhead politician decided to corrupt the very principles of the document his nation was founded on.

World

89

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s an evaluation of McCain on the 2nd Amendment:

Although I appreciate McCain’s reluctance to ban “assault weapons” (in quotes for reasons that most of us realize) hardly anything in the 2nd Amendment debate pisses me off more than ANYONE, including McCain, redirecting the argument towards “hunting”.

The 2nd has absolutely nothing to do with “hunting” unless in the context of hunting tyranny and inflicting a lethal wound in IT. It has nothing to do with plinking. It has nothing to do with recreation.

This is why John McCain despite his exemplary sacrifice for his country and his comrades in Nam is just another brain dead dupe when it comes to the Constitution, the document that he will swear to uphold when he takes the oath of office.

Grinds my fuckin gears! [Peter Griffin][/quote]

Ditto.

At least someone else here thinks rationally.

World

90

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m against no-restriction.

I think we can all agree on that.

I know four NRA members who believe the right to carry a rifle and or hand gun in public is guaranteed.

Provided they file the paperwork for a permit, so do I.

Would be six if I was an NRA member.

Does Second Amendment Foundation count? The right to carry is a basic human right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Being mentally ill or a violent felon divests you of the right to carry. In 34 states, all someone has to do is apply for a permit and they’ve got it, unless they are otherwise disqualified.

The bottom line is that most gun crime is committed by a small subset of the population. They (not properly permitted concealed weapon carriers) are the exception, not the rule.

[/quote]

Finally someone said it.

Thank you.

World

91

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.

/shrug/[/quote]

Would you please point out where one of us said that?

We are referring to free men/women-- the citizens of this country, as stated in the Constitution, not criminals.

Dipshit.

World

92

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I never knew there were so many people who thought registered felons should be able to walk up and buy a gun and bullets, and brandish them in public without hassle.

/shrug/

Yes, thats exactly what everyone is saying in this thread.

I was clarifying exaclty what was meant by “unrestricted ownership”.

These are four guys who think now released murderers have every right to own a pistol and brandish it in public.

Just warning everyone who exactly they were associating with when they said 5, 6, 7, and 8.[/quote]

Once again, I looked at all their posts, and not once is the idea of criminals purchasing weapons mentioned.

Just give up now asshole.

World

93

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

I’d just like to see weapons manufacturers take a bigger fall when they’ve been selling guns in bulk to guys who don’t have a license to sell them.[/quote]

You need to find at least 2 news references regarding the same event that illustrates your statement is not a complete and utter fallacy asshole.

Typical liberal horseshit… what really makes me sick is that by being in the military, I actually protect your sorry ass. I get shot at, so that you can question the document and the country I am putting my life on the line for.

World

94

[quote]JD430 wrote:
tom63 wrote:

Legislators have no idea what they are legislating. What’s a barrel shroud?

She’s a moron.

That is an understatement.

Can anyone clarify for me what part of her 2005 bill actually protects law enforcement, or did she simply throw that in to try and garner the support of people who have attention spans that can’t make it past a single sentence. I have always been personally offended by lumping an anti-freedom bill into the same category as one designed to protect law enforcement.

If legislators want to protect us, they would make sure that we are supported when we do our jobs. Instead, they usually start running around like headless chickens when a cop has to pull a trigger on a miscreant. In fact, I will take it a step further.

I will be safer at work when more honest, decent Americans are allowed to carry arms to defend themselves(and maybe me). Universal CCW legislation is a real Law Enforcement Protection Act.

How do such worthless human beings get elected?[/quote]

Think that’s bad of that bitch, eh gents?

You can’t forget the stunt she pulled when in front of Congress trying to do some demonstration an AK47. She was having some problems loading it… namely because she attempted to insert the damned thing backwards.

Also, I must agree with the bitch on one thing. She says that weapons with barrel shrouds are dangerous because the “barrel shroud” is the “shoulder thing that goes up.” Well, let’s assume for a minute the barrel shroud was actually the “shoulder thing that goes up,” that would mean the muzzle was pointed at or in the very near vicinity of one’s cranium. In that case, yes, I would agree with her that said weapon would be dangerous, but only to the user. Which, if you think about it, is actually a good thing… Darwinism ya know.

I’d like nothing better than for the bitch to take one between the eyes. But that’s just wishful thinking, because after all, with the laws she attempts to get passed, you won’t find a firearm anywhere but 18 feet up in a deerstand-- so she’s very protected, according to her logic anyway.

World

95

[quote]World1187 wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Magnate wrote:
own 2 rifles.

You do?! How do you manage to control the sudden freak urge to shoot someone when you get pissed?

You think he’s bad news?!?!?! lol

I’m surprised I haven’t been labeled the next Charles Whitman for my arsenal… roughly 30 rifles, two shotguns, 6 pistols (4 1911s), and 5 revolvers…

And bet your ass I have ammo for every single one of them…hahaha!!!

World[/quote]

Do you, along with everyone else who read what I wrote, honestly think I was being serious?

96

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
World1187 wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Magnate wrote:
own 2 rifles.

You do?! How do you manage to control the sudden freak urge to shoot someone when you get pissed?

You think he’s bad news?!?!?! lol

I’m surprised I haven’t been labeled the next Charles Whitman for my arsenal… roughly 30 rifles, two shotguns, 6 pistols (4 1911s), and 5 revolvers…

And bet your ass I have ammo for every single one of them…hahaha!!!

World

Do you, along with everyone else who read what I wrote, honestly think I was being serious?
[/quote]

I am absolutely aware you were being sarcastic. I was just further illustrating the idiocy of liberals regarding firearms…

World

97

[quote]World1187 wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
World1187 wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Magnate wrote:
own 2 rifles.

You do?! How do you manage to control the sudden freak urge to shoot someone when you get pissed?

You think he’s bad news?!?!?! lol

I’m surprised I haven’t been labeled the next Charles Whitman for my arsenal… roughly 30 rifles, two shotguns, 6 pistols (4 1911s), and 5 revolvers…

And bet your ass I have ammo for every single one of them…hahaha!!!

World

Do you, along with everyone else who read what I wrote, honestly think I was being serious?

I am absolutely aware you were being sarcastic. I was just further illustrating the idiocy of liberals regarding firearms…

World[/quote]

Exxxxxcellent.

98

I’m pretty sure if firearm owners were the savage killers that liberal portray them to be, I probably would have taken out the entire coast by now, along with a good bit of the national guard…

They act like it’s OK to own a couple hunting weapons, but forbid you to own something for fun-- 1911’s, .50 BMGs, assault rifles…

It’s bullshit, ya know?

World

99

[quote]World1187 wrote:

You’ve obviously never had any Marine Corps training. A properly trained individual with a knife, could sneak through your entire house, kill everyone in it without making a sound, and then exit the structure with no one ever knowing he was there besides multiple corpses.

The instrument itself does not represent lethality-- it is the individual with said instrument.

World[/quote]

Excellent point, World. Glad you mentioned it. I didn’t want to be the only one thinking it.

Renee

100

[quote]World1187 wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I’m against no-restriction.

I think we can all agree on that.

I don’t think we can. I certainly cannot and will not. Ever.

The Second Amendment didn’t specify why, how, or when a citizen should be allowed to use his firearms. It simply stated that every free man has the right to keep and bear arms. There was no mention of restriction.

If I want to own a full auto, why the hell shouldn’t I be able to? I have fired thousands of full auto rounds in the Marine Corps, I’d say I am certainly qualified to own one privately. But no, some dickhead politician decided to corrupt the very principles of the document his nation was founded on

World[/quote]

By ‘restriction’ I mean simply registering your ownership and keeping it out of the hands of violent criminals. Whether you have a fully automatic rifle or pistol doesn’t matter to me.