Posted on 02/26/2005 1:02:36 PM PST by Sterrins
Greedy bitch, isn't she? Dance on the graves of two innocent workers in order to deprive people of the means to abolish a tyrannical government. Way to go, bimbo!
the word was only used in reference to what a NY guy I think posted to me saying that in their bill they were trying to get rid of ALL semi autoloaders including shotguns like Rem 11-87 or what have you.....I was just using the term "regular" as a generic term for most firearms like trap or skeet shotguns, semi auto rifles like REm 760 or 740 cant remember which is pump or auto etc. So it was just a quick post in reference to that as opposed to what we generally call assault like AK47, M1A, M14 etc. I've shot them all....well not an AK, and I know you are being specific like pistol grips on shotguns, Mossberg 500 has them etc....I realize that, I wasn't getting into extreme specifics, just quickly pointing out that their bill was even more extreme than ours was.......I don't believe any firearms should be banned myself well except for full auto's which you may not agree with, but I may give them that.....also, I think some of the cheap ass mini handguns and "so called Saturday Night specials" are somewhat circumspect but not because of 2nd amendment policy but on safety policy.......hope that clears it up a little.....didn't have time with this guy to pontificate on all the specifics and variables like magazine capacity etc.
Someone makes fun of Feinstein in Post #9, and the post gets deleted??? This censorship is going way to far.
It clears it up a lot. Your stand is perfectly consistent with the stand of most anti-gunners; that the government is justified in banning some arms if they can make the claim that they are too dangerous. That is exactly the reasoning that Feinstein has used to cause me to remove five of my non-"regular" rifles from Kalifornia. You and Feinstein only differ on which arms should be banned.
If you really think that full-auto makes a firearm too dangerous, then you probably won't want to own one and you are willing to confiscate them from your neighbors.
If you really think that some inexpensive handguns are too poorly made, then you probably won't want to own one and you are willing to confiscate them from your neighbors.
IOWA??? WTF is wrong with them? Are they a blue state?
I don't want to confiscate anything.....you obviously know firearms and I look at some of the cheap crap out there like I would an unsafe car....that is all.....and yes, if you want to pigeonhole be because of fully automatic weapons than so be it.....I know anyone who knows much about firearms can file down or make a semi into a full auto fairly easily.....I don't think people should own anti tank guns or 50 caliber machine guns etc......yes there is a line to be drawn but it is drawn and has to be somewhere. I don't think even the NRA is angling to get .50 caliber machine guns back into use.....I"m not talking about the 50 caliber bolt or semi's ......that is all I really want to discuss this.....i'm having too much fun on my other threads.....I understand what you are saying and that is fine......to turn me into a liberal or something really is a stretch.....just that my line is drawn perhaps different than yours but we probably agree on 95% of this........would be a shame to keep arguing over 5% don't ya think?
no but I read this on another FR thread on friday or something like that......not sure of the details.....
Only as an inconvenience.
Mark
As usual, it always comes down to whose 5% gets sacrificed.
The Second Amendment allows for no infringement. The amendment process of the Constitution is available to make adjustments so that full-auto firearms could be restricted. The requirement to make such a change is more than just a majority vote of Congress and there is a very good reason for such protections of fundamental human rights.
What you claim is 5% is for me, in fact, at least 33% since I have had to relocate five of the fifteen firearms I own to storage 3000 miles from my home.
Would you be willing to allow a majority of Congress, with the consent of the President, to eliminate the requirement for trial by jury? How about just eliminating the requirement of trial by jury for 5% of defendants? How about eliminating 5% of the requirements for search warrants. How about shutting down 5% of freedom of the press?
there you go again....I"m trying to be nice but I'm not sure whether you took any debate classes or not cause you know are extrapolating to other areas that don't even relate....doing that we could chat for the next decade about "exceptions" to rules......sorry you had to relocate, you have different priorities than I....but throwing this 5% exception thing in now makes you look silly and indignent. There are alot of things in nature and politics and whatever that suffer the 3rd standard deviation of the bell shaped curve and get curtailed....Since you are just looking to argue, this is now a mundane issue....I notice that when people bash Calif that many of them are Texans. Well I don't know what this superior than others vein is but it is not attractive....You many know more about firearms than I, I'll give you that, but I have an advanced degree in Psychology and usually this kind of riduculing or sometimes bashing is a classic bullying type syndrome and most of the time it is caused by subconcious jealousy or insecurity.......I'm sure that statement will piss you off but in this case, I really do know what I"m talking about....In fact, it is exactly the non compartmentalized and random badgering that proves my point.......just have a nice day and know that you won the arguement and you now are better and smarter and than I.........OK?
ps.....I mistook you for another person from Texas, my apologies.........
Feinstein, Boxer and other useless Kalifornia politicians were a major factor in my decision to pack up and leave the state years ago, I see things haven't changed.
If she's really interested in banning something, why not the illegals that continue to cross the border. Far more citizens have died at the hands of illegals than by assault weapons.
Is he pro-gun control?
Is he pro-gun?
Perhaps only his barber knows for sure.
It is not "random badgering" to ask someone to clarify what they are saying. Such clarification revealed that you approve the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms in the case of full-auto weapons and so-called Saturday Night Specials.
I further asked you whether you would consider it reasonable to infringe other rights protected by the Bill of Rights or whether the Second Amendment for some reason is deserving of less protection. Does your three-sigma argument apply to firearms but not newspapers? Why are you unwilling to explain why you think there should be exceptions to some rights and not others? How do you decide?
The federal government had virtually NO firearms laws prior to 1934. Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed as a revenue act to avoid the obvious challenge that would have been expected at that time because it infringes the right to keep and bear arms.
The battles of Lexington and Concord, which initiated the warfare which eventually resulted in the establishment of our union, were a response to confiscation of arms. The resulting Constitution and Bill of Rights were to prevent the government from once again tyrannizing the people. The enemy during the American Revolution was not "the British", it was "the government".
Is there no way that our Founders could have written a Second Amendment that would protect me from your infringing my right to keep and bear a full-auto firearm? Besides "shall not be infringed", what should they have written?
If I support amending the Constitution now to restore my rights, how should it be worded? Must I list all barrel lengths protected? Must I list every caliber protected? Must I specifically list all firing modes and firing rates that are allowed?
Is there any way to word a Second Amendment that protects my rights from infringement by a simple majority vote of Congress?
that is a good question....don't know.......does that mean my neighbor can mount an antiaircraft gun in his front yard or own a tank to go hunting.......those are extremes but I guess can be classified as firearms......I'm just saying there are limits and what is up for debate is where they are drawn......don't confuse that with me wholesaleing being anti gun....we may have different limits or wording but I am hardly anti gun......my history of ownership, marksmanship with both battle rifles and assault rifles would speak favorably.....you just don't like my limits but I know those who would own a howitzer or toad missles if you let them....theoretically I agree with you that it says the "not be infringed", but the founding fathers couldn't have imagined alot of things.....
That was the case as recently as the 1960s. The only thing that has changed is the liberals' unwillingness to hold people responsible for their own actions. Everyone is a victim nowadays. Sexual predators are sentenced lightly and then murder little girls when paroled. Presidents perjure themselves and get a pass from the US Senate. Cub Scouts are not allowed to carry pocket knives at school.
Would YOU harm your neighbor with an anti-aircraft gun or a tank? I doubt it. Why, then, don't you expect the same restraint from all of your fellow citizens? Why is the solution to societies problems more and more prior restraint? We are making our rules such that little or no discipline is required from even the least well-behaved among us.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not concerned with what people might do with a cannon or a warship? They expected power to be handled responsibly and punished those who failed to do so. Why do you see things so differently than Washington or Jefferson?
haha.....you mean those slave owners.....Washington and Jefferson.......well cause even though you and I wouldn't hurt others with a howitzer, the world is different know and there are people that would and the gov't has to protect us in some things....sad to say........need to go and eat dinner and watch the god awful oscars.......see ya later......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.