Ten Paces then DRAW!
- Thread starter Canucklehead
- Start date
Someone without access to guns steals a gun from a collector. The collector had a number of guns that they weren't supposed to have. Thief breaks into house and steals guns...If the guns were regulated you increase the chance that these types of weapons are unavailable to said thief.
Registration allows for the tracking of weapons. Making police work easier.
Why do you need an assault weapon ?
You're missing the point... those that advocate their right to bear arms forget about the innocent victims right to go through life without being shot for absolutely no reason.
Registration allows for the tracking of weapons. Making police work easier.
Why do you need an assault weapon ?
You're missing the point... those that advocate their right to bear arms forget about the innocent victims right to go through life without being shot for absolutely no reason.
No, you HOPE you never need an assault rifle.
Okay, let us put this as simply as possible.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution garauntees the right to keep and bear arms.
They are NOT talking about hunting, but about the ability of the people to resist tyranny.
The arms that are protected are military type personal weapons.
If the Americans do not like the fact all have the right to keep and bear arms, they can amend the Constitution.
That has not been done.
It will not be done in the immediate future.
Until it is done, talk of gun control in the USA is a waste of time. Most of the laws on the books now are blatantly unconstitutional.
If you are an American, and you want strict gun control, work to change the Bill of Rights FIRST.
Good Luck, you'll need it.
As for American guns causing violence in Canada, and the demand that the US tighten its laws to suit us, I suggest you put the shoe on the other foot.
Can you imagine the uproar should the USA demand we truncate our Charter of Rights to suit US interests?
Okay, let us put this as simply as possible.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution garauntees the right to keep and bear arms.
They are NOT talking about hunting, but about the ability of the people to resist tyranny.
The arms that are protected are military type personal weapons.
If the Americans do not like the fact all have the right to keep and bear arms, they can amend the Constitution.
That has not been done.
It will not be done in the immediate future.
Until it is done, talk of gun control in the USA is a waste of time. Most of the laws on the books now are blatantly unconstitutional.
If you are an American, and you want strict gun control, work to change the Bill of Rights FIRST.
Good Luck, you'll need it.
As for American guns causing violence in Canada, and the demand that the US tighten its laws to suit us, I suggest you put the shoe on the other foot.
Can you imagine the uproar should the USA demand we truncate our Charter of Rights to suit US interests?
Did you notice where I'm posting from Colpy ?
Did you notice where the link I posted took place?
Is there a difference in the guns of today and the guns used in the revolutionary war? I understand what the constitution says and no one is trying to take that right away. If you're in a situation where you need an assault rifle...martial law has likely been declared. The National Guard will be there. You don't need an assault rifle.
Are you saying the right to bear arms supercedes the right to the life and pursuit of happiness ? ( Which by the way, becomes very difficult when you are the innocent victim of a shooting.)
What you are saying is The guy that shot all these people in the Tacoma mall has more of a constitutional right than they do. That isn't the intention of the constitutution.
Did you notice where the link I posted took place?
Is there a difference in the guns of today and the guns used in the revolutionary war? I understand what the constitution says and no one is trying to take that right away. If you're in a situation where you need an assault rifle...martial law has likely been declared. The National Guard will be there. You don't need an assault rifle.
Are you saying the right to bear arms supercedes the right to the life and pursuit of happiness ? ( Which by the way, becomes very difficult when you are the innocent victim of a shooting.)
What you are saying is The guy that shot all these people in the Tacoma mall has more of a constitutional right than they do. That isn't the intention of the constitutution.
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!
My apologies. I didn't notice where you were posting from. OOOPS!!!
So, by your argument, the First Amendment does not apply to electronic media, which did not exist in 1786. For that matter, printing has changed more than guns in the past 230 years, so the print media is no longer protected either.
Doesn't make sense.
The only way to interpret old script is to discern the spirit of want the people who penned those words meant. Read Jefferson, Madison, etc., and it is obvious what is protected. They worried the National Guard might NOT be on your side.
If you don't like the Bill of Rights, work to change it. Don't undermine the entire constitution, your gov't seems to be doing a good enough job of that.
BTW, collective rights (the right to be free from whatever....in this case attack) are not rights at all. In fact, the imposition of collective rights always destroys individual rights......without any positive result.
zenfisher said:
My apologies. I didn't notice where you were posting from. OOOPS!!!
So, by your argument, the First Amendment does not apply to electronic media, which did not exist in 1786. For that matter, printing has changed more than guns in the past 230 years, so the print media is no longer protected either.
Doesn't make sense.
The only way to interpret old script is to discern the spirit of want the people who penned those words meant. Read Jefferson, Madison, etc., and it is obvious what is protected. They worried the National Guard might NOT be on your side.
If you don't like the Bill of Rights, work to change it. Don't undermine the entire constitution, your gov't seems to be doing a good enough job of that.
BTW, collective rights (the right to be free from whatever....in this case attack) are not rights at all. In fact, the imposition of collective rights always destroys individual rights......without any positive result.
So you believe that you have the right to own a nuclear weapon because the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms? I understood why the ammendment was included... I find it interesting that the same party that is supported by the NRA...is also the same party that is eroding our rights.
Your argument about electronic media is facetious. It covers speech. As electronic media covers both speech and the printed word...it would apply to electronic media. The ammendment applies.
As I mentioned ...no one is denying your right to bear arms....just the types of weapons that are allowed.You can defend your home adequately with a pistol or a hunting rifle.( that includes against the government)
The first step in changing the Bill of Rights is to make the public aware. I am working on that.
You think the individual rights... the shooters...to obtain a firearm( legal or illegally) ...which harms innocent people is a ...positive result? I don't believe that for a second. At least i hope you don't think that way.
BTW...the shooter did not have the right to own a gun...that right was revoked by the courts. Yet because there are so many guns and so many ways to get guns down here...he still got one. The sad part is...this is one of many incidents.
Your argument about electronic media is facetious. It covers speech. As electronic media covers both speech and the printed word...it would apply to electronic media. The ammendment applies.
As I mentioned ...no one is denying your right to bear arms....just the types of weapons that are allowed.You can defend your home adequately with a pistol or a hunting rifle.( that includes against the government)
The first step in changing the Bill of Rights is to make the public aware. I am working on that.
You think the individual rights... the shooters...to obtain a firearm( legal or illegally) ...which harms innocent people is a ...positive result? I don't believe that for a second. At least i hope you don't think that way.
BTW...the shooter did not have the right to own a gun...that right was revoked by the courts. Yet because there are so many guns and so many ways to get guns down here...he still got one. The sad part is...this is one of many incidents.
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!
We don't need politicians either, and they have proven to be far more dangerous than guns. (hence the second amendment)
All guns are assault weapons. Just ask the partridge I shot in the fall, with my side by side 12 guage.
I think not said:
We don't need politicians either, and they have proven to be far more dangerous than guns. (hence the second amendment)
All guns are assault weapons. Just ask the partridge I shot in the fall, with my side by side 12 guage.
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!
I think there is a difference between the "The right to bear arms" and the right to use a weapon of mass destruction. That's what an assault weapon is, like a semi-automatic machine gun for example.
Jay said:
I think there is a difference between the "The right to bear arms" and the right to use a weapon of mass destruction. That's what an assault weapon is, like a semi-automatic machine gun for example.
Semi-automatic weapons fire shots as fast as you can pull the trigger; the weapon loads itself. Fully automatic weapons - you just squeeze the trigger, hold, and bullets come flying out.
Semi-auto weapons kill just as quickly as you can aim and fire (a sniper tool). I want a semi-auto .22 for rabbit hunting. (I just haven’t got permission from my wife to spend the money on something like that right now)
But if fully automatic weapons are weapons of mass destruction, then we wouldn't have any problems finding WMD in Iraq, cause they like AK-47s.
Semi-auto weapons kill just as quickly as you can aim and fire (a sniper tool). I want a semi-auto .22 for rabbit hunting. (I just haven’t got permission from my wife to spend the money on something like that right now)
But if fully automatic weapons are weapons of mass destruction, then we wouldn't have any problems finding WMD in Iraq, cause they like AK-47s.
All this hype about the gun registry in Canada, if you register a gun, doesn't that mean you basically have the right to bear arms?
You can't walk out of a gun shop in the US without a background check anyway. So I see no "practical" difference.
You can't walk out of a gun shop in the US without a background check anyway. So I see no "practical" difference.
Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!
Yes, it was enacted to resist tyranny, I agree with you there. But where do you draw the line?
Semi-automatics?
Bazookas?
How about a missile?
If there is to be a consensus, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Colpy said:
Yes, it was enacted to resist tyranny, I agree with you there. But where do you draw the line?
Semi-automatics?
Bazookas?
How about a missile?
If there is to be a consensus, you have to draw the line somewhere.
missile said:
Well I wouldn't know, since I never owned one. I really don't see any practical difference, your gun registry doesn't say, "you are not permitted to own a gun", it says you have to register it after a background check? Or am I wrong?
Jay said:
As far as guns go, I would have to disagree with you on that. Does keeping a list of diabetics for medical reference purposes anyway infringe on your rights?