Honolulu PD, NRA Square Off On Rifle Debate

KITV-4 (Hawaii) ^ | 2/22/08 | n/a

[2001convSVT]

AMEN to you Abundy! When the second amendment was ratified civilian could own anything they could afford.

[NoLibZone]

More innocents have been killed by LEOS than by 50s.

[Myrddin]

Move to a commie country. It won't be available for purchase and you can be happy. Please don't foist your foolishness on the rest of us.

[SoldierDad]

W/E

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I take deer with mine...

[rellimpank]

-—and it took an average of 12000 rounds of .50 BMG to do so —both in the Pacific and European theaters of war—

[RetiredArmy]

When the Marxist’s Dimocrats have the White House and Congress controlled together, January of 09 by the way, they will start passing little laws here and bigger ones there, to go around the 2d Amendment. They will do everything they can to unarm us or make it impossible to even purchase ammo for guns. Like a box of 40 cal shells costs $20.00, would probably be taxed by $100.00 and cost you $120.00 per box. They would tax us out of our minds on our ammo. Just another little law to take away more freedoms.

[NFHale]

“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...SHALL...NOT...BE...INFRINGED.”

Pretty easy concept to understand. You, as a “soldier dad” should understand that.

The Constitution says NOTHING about “civilian use”, “sporting use”, or ANY use other than what a firearm is intended for. It does NOT say “the right to keep only the arms WE feel are acceptable.”

It was written for the AGES, not the DAY. And almost EVERY State Constitution has a keep and bear arms clause in it. Look them up. New Jersey is an exception, and the Dems that control Jersey use it to their advantage fanatically, even though they violate the Federal Constitution (read that: BREAK THE LAW OF THE LAND) with impunity.

“Sporting use” came from 1930’s Nazi gun laws which the Dems (the previous Senator Dodd) copied in 1968 (look it up on JPFO.org).

They’re crying about the .50 now; next it’ll be the .30 caliber weapons. Then smaller and smaller. They already have their playbook written.

The way LEOs and Pols view a FREE MAN’s RIGHT to own firearms is critical. They either view you as a SUBJECT or as a Free citizen. They do NOT deserve to hold office if they don’t recognize you as a free citizen with unalienable rights, PERIOD. If they are afraid of YOU, you need to worry about THEM havening ANY power over you.

They are public servants; they work for YOU, and they should be reminded of it at every opportunity. And thrown out of office poste haste if they forget it.

Men DIED for this right; we should not give it up cheaply.

[beltfed308]

The way LEOs and Pols view a FREE MAN’s RIGHT to own firearms is critical. They either view you as a SUBJECT or as a Free citizen. They do NOT deserve to hold office if they don’t recognize you as a free citizen with unalienable rights, PERIOD. If they are afraid of YOU, you need to worry about THEM havening ANY power over you.

Pretty much puts it in a nutshell.

Bump!

[MileHi]

would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.

Fine, don't buy one. After you ban this, then a scoped .30 will be the next thing for the squeemish to wet themselves over. Don't buy into the "legitimate purpose for civilian use" crap. If I want one that should be enough in a free country.

[MacDorcha]

Bump!

[SoldierDad]

So, you wish to try and compare the late 1700’s with today? Wow. No small stretch for use of logic there. Yeah, there’s no difference today compared to during the 1700’s. Our nation is just the same today as it was back then. We have no problems with border security or illegal immigrants today. We have no enemies which, coming here legally, would then want to be able to purchase weapons that could be used against civilian populations simply for the sake of creating terror. You can justify your position all you want using anedotes from the 1700’s, but that doesn’t mean you have a valid argument in today’s world. You perhaps might also have made a comment that in the late 1700’s the only people allowed to vote were property owners. But, you left that part out. You could also have reported the fact that today almost anyone can find a way to purchase a firearm, but in the 1700’s the only people that had the money to buy the types of weapons you speak of were either property owners or those with the skills to make their own. Not much of a comparison between then and now, now that you take a closer look.

[EdReform]

Spot on, well said!

[rickomatic]

Well, then, I want my F-22. I want to be able to own an Abrams tank. I want to have a battleship or an Aircraft Carrier. Because, according to the logic being applied here, the only way I, or anyone else, can legitimately claim my 2nd amendment right is to have weapons which can be used to defend myself (and others) from our Government, and the only way in which to be able to defend ourselves from that Government is to have the same weapons they have as a civilian. I have a hard time with that logic.

You have a hard time with that logic because you are ignorant of history.You CAN own an Abrams tank, if you can afford one. And as far as a battleship or aircract carrier? Maybe you should spend a little more time reading US History, and less time spouting ignorance on the internet. During the early years of our Republic private ships were indeed armed with "guns" better known as cannon. Ever hear the term "privateer"? Completely legal privately owned warships. It wasn't until blssninnies like you started to wet your pants over law abiding citizens arms ownership that it became a popular belief that the only reason to own weapons was for "sporting purposes".

Sorry if this sounds unkind. But I and many others are about fed up with your kind. You have NO right to champion the depravation of our God given rights. Read the founding fathers, then come back here and tell us if you still feel this way.

[BOATSNM8]

I gotta think it would be useful to plug Rocky Mountain antelope, high-range mountain goats (mentioned above, I assume), moose, wapiti and other high-strung animals.

---

There is not much left to salvage after that shot is taken.

[beltfed308]

So, you wish to try and compare the late 1700’s with today? Wow. No small stretch for use of logic there.

Cool...the 1st ammendment only protects quill pens and printing presses from that era. Nice logic.

[MacDorcha]

Illegals got you down?

Immigrants who are still loyal to enemy causes too?

Read my tagline!

---

So... common sense has an experation date, eh?

Ecclesiastes 1:9-14

[PeteB570]

Well, if you have a back yard big enough I sure support your right to park an aircraft carrier in it - as long as it’s OK with the homeowner’s association.

One of them .50s is a little hard to whip out from under the seat and take a shot as you drive down the street.

I get an extra $8,000 and I’d like one. But then I’d have to get a bigger gun safe.

[4yearlurker]

I feel the same way about Corvettes. What do people want them for anyway? The pure excitement?

[Erik Latranyi]

Other than the pure excitement of shooting such a weapon, does this gun have any legitimate purpose for civilian use? I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.

First, I don't remember the Constitution saying anything about legitimate purposes.

Secondly, the .50 BMG has been used in competitive 1000 yard events for many years.