I must protest

[Jerrymac]

 I must protest....




It's not the guns but the people that pull the trigger.

[reinbeau]

I must protest....




It's not the guns but the people that pull the trigger.

Ah, but tell that to the sheeple who believe everything that's fed to them! 

[beemaster]

It's not guns or triggers that kill people it's bullets that do. I'm a strong advocate of munitions control. Have all the weapons you believe the constitution allows, just limit the bullets and I think the world would be a little safer.

[Jerrymac]

 

You do realize that the 2nd amendment is about more than just target shooting and sporting events and hunting and personal security don't you?

 

[beemaster]

Lordy Rob: Whay have you Created - lol. Meaning the emoticons of course)

Jerry: I understand the concept of defeating a government that has either go awry or been over taken and you wish to fight to reconstitute it. Also your ability to prevent the exstinction of Americans who live by the Constitution, and a sudden overtaking  as would/could destroy our promised way of life.

So what are we to do, take the $1000 checks Obama wants to dish out and buy naplam for our flame throwers. I'm scared of a looney down the road who might beat his wife and kids, drinks until he blacks out and decides it's time to go on a rampage and kill all his neighbors MORE than I am the threat of losing our Government to an internal or external faction. Having a weapon would indeed equal my chances against a single looney, but what impeding force am I going to save our way of life from, whether alone or in numbers?

Everyone needs to take what they hold dear to them in the Constitution and soapbox the extremes. That is what scares me, not the fact our government possesses and has used nucs, I'd rather deal with a currupt politician then a Utah Militia bent on building an arrsenal to take over the existing government we already have.

If I'm missing your point in either what you posted or what I wrote, please fill me in - but I'm sorry that I'll never agree that anyone will need a million round of ammo to go with their 50 cal. machine gun whether to protect our way of life or hunt moose from a helecoptor, Never.

[reinbeau]

John, with all due respect, why do you think you have the right to limit my access to bullets for my guns?  I'm not a loon, I learned to shoot to defend myself from loons - and anyone who decides they want what I have.  Making decisions based on fear is a bad way to make any decision.  Lawful, responsible gun owners aren't a threat to you, criminals who break laws are. 

How did we get here from there?

[Jerrymac]

Yeah I feel this should be split off of here and started in the coffee house for further discussion. 

[Jerrymac]

Now look at what I have done 

[kathyp]

just limit the bullets and I think the world would be a little safer.

you and obama will get on well!

i am more afraid of the loony down the road going on a rampage and me not being able to shoot him dead!

[Brian D. Bray]

It's not guns or triggers that kill people it's bullets that do. I'm a strong advocate of munitions control. Have all the weapons you believe the constitution allows, just limit the bullets and I think the world would be a little safer.

Take people out of the equation and not even a bullet is deadly, it can set in a gun forever and never go off, until somebody comes along a pulls the trigger.

Lordy Rob: Whay have you Created - lol.

Jerry: I understand the concept of defeating a government that has either go awry or been over taken and you wish to fight to reconstitute it. Also your ability to prevent the exstinction of Americans who live by the Constitution, and a sudden overtaking  as would/could destroy our promised way of life.

So what are we to do, take the $1000 checks Obama wants to dish out and buy naplam for our flame throwers. I'm scared of a looney down the road who might beat his wife and kids, drinks until he blacks out and decides it's time to go on a rampage and kill all his neighbors MORE than I am the threat of losing our Government to an internal or external faction. Having a weapon would indeed equal my chances against a single looney, but what impeding force am I going to save our way of life from, whether alone or in numbers?

Everyone needs to take what they hold dear to them in the Constitution and soapbox the extremes. That is what scares me, not the fact our government possesses and has used nucs, I'd rather deal with a currupt politician then a Utah Militia bent on building an arrsenal to take over the existing government we already have.

If I'm missing your point in either what you posted or what I wrote, please fill me in - but I'm sorry that I'll never agree that anyone will need a million round of ammo to go with their 50 cal. machine gun whether to protect our way of life or hunt moose from a helecoptor, Never.

 

My question to people who want some "sensable" restrictions on weapons ownership is: "What part of the 2nd amendment don't you understand?"

At the time of the American Revolution the American civilian was better armed and more proficient in the use of a firearm than any member of the British Army.  It was that critical matter that allowed the "Colonies" to throw of the yoke of oppression.

If someone wants to take away the use of outdated military arms from the citizenry, that citizenry becomes less of a reserve force to the standing army and national guard.  In Previous Supreme Court decisions it was pointed out that the need for private citizens to have access to military style weapons was necessary for the safety and welfare of these United States.
See, there is 3 levels of the military as recognized in the 2nd Amendment; a standing army, a militia (national guard), and all citizens at large. That's one of the primary reasons our nation has not been invaded, attacked yes, but not invaded.  Under or Constitution, every able bodied person is a member of the irregular militia.  That is a large force than can be called up, even by their own initiative, in the case of an invasion or war.  Even during WWI many communities raised companies or battalions of men to serve in the time of war.  Those men were already trained in use of weapons so could go into battle immediately if needed.
It has only been since WWII that that custom was discontinued, it doesn't mean such a system is no longer valid.

I've said it at least once and I'll say it again: I'd rather be on an airplane where everyone had a weapon than on one where no one has one.  Why?  Because all it takes is one person with some ingenuity to bypass security or turn "harmless items" into weapons.

[beemaster]

Reinbeau:

My fear is NOT the home owner/hunter/target shooter - it is the extreme anti-law militia who believe rocket launchers, heat tagetted missles and anti-tank guns all fall under equal protection in the second Amendment. It is those who are capable with funding to build a resistance to a force that is non-existant except to them that I worry about.

Am I the only one that thinks if someone comes in an (again has the money) buy a million boxes of bullets. Isn't there RED FLAGS that should be observed somewhere, isn't there ANY LINE that we should draw on the gun issue?

Trust me, nothing wimpy here except I'm not into handling anything that goes boom or broken glass (the latter is my phobia) I would pity the man who harms my loved ones, he would not live long except to suffer extreme pain before his slow death. I don't need weapons to achieve this, just money enough to pay someone to do the dirty for me.

I know this is a big country with feelings on how we look at weapons imbred into our upbringing. NJ has very tight laws on concealed weapons, and rigorous background checks, all of which mean nothing I agree - but I will say that where you live has lots to do with your feelings about guns. Here it is a hunting thing mostly, so shotguns, followed by rifles and most handguns are used at practice range, not carried EVEN disassemble and buried in the trunk.

I don't think I have the right to tell you how many bullets you can have, what I said (or at least tried to convey) was I think restrictions should be placed on the part of the gun that does the damage, the bullets. I don't know what an acceptable amount of ammo is, but enough to hold off the police for a month seems a bit over the top to me.

I think we are all protected by the books of our rights as citizens, but people challenge these rights all the time OFTEN bringing issues to the Supreme Court, who's only job is to Interpret the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President - at least that is what Bill told me on School House Rock.

I know keeping guns away from the law abiding citizens is an open door to criminals with guns. But this is the area I'm brought up in, we tend to leave most the guns to those we entrust to enforce the laws with. Silly concept to many of you, it just shows that STATES may not have borders, but their interpretation of what the constitution allows is often unchecked until someone with enough money to fight it takes a conflict very high in the courts.

Jerrymac: Too many topics lately have gone from subject to subject, and differ far from their topic header - I'm not into splitting all this, I'm sure the mods here could find a dividing point and might split it, but then someone would complain that they couldn't find the post - trust me, somethings are better left alone

I'll gladly lock it if that doesn't infridge on someone's preception of Rights - just remember, there are no RIGHTs on any Internet forum, even the freedom of speech is a preception of Rights - there are only priviledges - I learned that after being banned on 4 or 5 forums over the years   That eye-opener mellowed me out, I use to be a real wildman in my younger internet day, not a fighter or cusser, just a strong believer in pushing my points - we have plenty of those here, but they know how to do it in a nice way. Something the other forums didn't know how to do, so they got what they got.

[Jerrymac]

I just knew this was going to go way off topic and could go on forever.

Freedom of speech is for the government. Not individual forums.

You trust the police. If the government should go bad, it is the police that will be enforcing the will of the bad government. The good guys will probably quit leaving only bad guys. There are a few countries with really bad police departments.

You probably only know the militias from what you have seen on the news, or some script writer's interpretation of them. I was with the so called militia movement back in the 1990s. We were not out to over throw the government, we were preparing to protect the citizens from a bad government and restore the government back to the way the constitution intended... of the need arose. Remember that was under Clinton's reign. Now if some of the stuff I hear about Obama turns out to be true and he leans more towards one world government, be prepared to hear more about militias. And remember they are not there to terrorize you, but to protect your constitution.  

[kathyp]

how much ammo?  i can cook off several hundred rounds doing some practice shooting.  if i did that once or twice a week, that's a lot of ammo. 

I think restrictions should be placed on the part of the gun that does the damage

that would be the human.  as brian pointed out, neither the gun, nor the bullits can act on their own.

NJ has very tight laws on concealed weapons, and rigorous background checks, all of which mean nothing I agree

it means a lot.  it means that the law abiding citizen trying to purchase a gun has to jump through many hoops to satisfy the government.  the criminal will bypass those checks.

[1frozenhillbilly]

i will just weigh in here having lived in a country where ammunition is heavily controled,  i served for most of 2 years in japan,  the citizens of japan are not allowed to have ammunition outside of licensed and controled shooting ranges or controled hunting reserves,  if you want amunition out side of those areas you pay about 300% to buy it from the yakuza. 

[Melilem]

I must protest....




It's not the guns but the people that pull the trigger.

Well from a SHEEPS perspective, mint and rosemary is pretty scarey, too.

[Scadsobees]

What if said sheep happen to overhear the farmer talking about veal?

Its gotta happen somehow
  and somehow I don't think that they do it like this

[indypartridge]

I would pity the man who harms my loved ones, he would not live long except to suffer extreme pain before his slow death. I don't need weapons to achieve this, just money enough to pay someone to do the dirty for me.

I'd rather take steps to protect my loved ones, including arming them & teaching them how to protect themselves. My teenage daughter can outshoot her cop-brother, and my wife can outshoot all of us.

...in the area I'm brought up in, we tend to leave most the guns to those we entrust to enforce the laws with.

The problem is that Police don't "protect", they investigate crimes. You can't carry a policeman in your pocket or have one in the nightstand.

If you depend on the Police to protect you, they'll show up after you or your family members are dead and promise to do the best they can to find the killer.

At Columbine and Virgina Tech, the shooting only ended when the shooters decided to quit. At Pearl, Mississippi, the shooter was stopped by the vice principal who ran to his truck & got his gun.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm
The church shooting at Wedgewood Baptist near Ft. Worth ended only when the shooter decided to quit. The shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs ended when a lady took a revolver from her purse and dropped him.
http://www.ppfc.org/nl200801.pdf

In my opinion, "Gun-free zones" are invitations to mass shootings.

[Irwin]

I plan on having more ammo then I'll ever need so when things go to he-- I will be Abel to sell or trade for some thing I will need. Even for my pellet gun that shoots over 1000 fps.

[danno]

break a leg off a kitchen table and beat someone to death with it makes kitchen legs assault weapons.  The world would be a safer place if we limited the number of table legs in private homes

[Melilem]

That's unreasonable, and the government doesn't make any money at all off that solution. We should require all tables to be registered. The fee collected would help offset (well, in theory, in actuallity it would fund a Bingo Museum built by the governor's brother) the cost of a newly created "Bureau of Tables" which would maintain a list of table owners.