[RockyMt]

With all the renewed talk about "gun control", I thought I'd add this to the rhetoric.

Gun Control; The theory that a woman, found raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got those fatal bullet wounds.......:woot:

Semper Fi! :rockon

-Rocky-

 

[Area 51]

Link?

 

[Area 51]

Gun control wouldn't help these stupidos. But at least they didn't have a nine mil 30-round clip .

 

[nycstripes]

What the hell did that have to do with anything relevant to this topic? Time for another joint...

 

[Area 51]

Chill, nyracingstripe. coRky started a stupid thread so I'm playing along so he feels important. Don't tell him.

And yes, it is almost 4:20. Thanks for reminding me.:clapper
Pah-tay.

 

[Area 51]

Serious gun control question:

When the 2nd Amendment was written the prevalent type of firearm was the muzzleloader. Isn't that correct?

Well, it seems to me that those who wrote the 2nd didn't foresee semi-auto or full auto or mega-magazines , etc. But now we have judicial interpretation that makes lawfull various killing tools which far exceed those of 1776ish. I'm not obsessed with gun rights/control like some are so please tell me:

How does this fact jibe with current 2nd Amendment interpretation?

I'm not sure the Founders would think us very wise in our application of their wisdom.

 

[nycstripes]

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the founders believed that gun ownership was a key element in preventing the Government from taking too much from the populace.

Nothing has changed since. People's right to arm themselves shall not be infringed. Technology wasn't the point, freedom from an oppressive government was.

 

[Area 51]

^
Oh, now I get it. Now I think everyone should have a gun. Maybe two.

Huck, huck.

Hey...dimwit. Everything has changed. Now your enemy has nukes...and you don't. I can't wait to watch on televison when you and your Idaho buddies march into Washington and get hit with that heat ray that the boogiemen have. Shout be a real hootenanny, huh?
It'll give me a good reason to stay up and watch the late-night monologues.
Dorks .


Honestly, what do you think would happen if an insurection was needed? Suppose the military was with the government and many of the people were as well? ALL people will never desert the government and some of them have guns, perhaps many do. Does it sound like it's worth getting all upset about? Just chill, dude, you'll be dead soon enough anyway (but have a long life). Just stick to writing your congressperson. If your Representative doesn't represent your point of view, but keeps getting elected, just go with it. It's not worth worrying about anyway, in the long run. Stay away from Safeways too.

Now suppose the military took over. That's a different story. They can do whatever they want to. Perhaps that is the most likely outcome. What would you think about that? It depends on who is runny things I suppose but probably I'd choose the military. Order is always the most important thing when there are so many people. Law and order is the first priority for a society. Haiti could use some now. So could Africa. Notice anything common to the two? Africans. Ever heard of that book, Guns, Germs and Seeds(? )? Theory is that in Europe, Asia and North America a warming after the last ice age made that temperate zone the center of social and economic growth. Warming in the equatorial zone stymied those societys. All power shifted north or south, away from the equator, where it previously had been. The first advantage of the temperate zone was that you could grow grain. Grain led to animals, etc. Black people never recovered, especialy when you consider slavery and racism. I don't know if that explains anything or not. It's just a theory (if I got it correct - not sure that I did), .




I'm pretty sure the differences between a muzzle loader and a Gatling gun change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Today is different from yesterday. The only question is, where to draw the line? You draw it on your arm...with a knife, probably:wacky
.

 

[nycstripes]

^
Oh, now I get it. Now I think everyone should have a gun. Maybe two.

Huck, huck.

Hey...dimwit. Everything has changed. Now your enemy has nukes...and you don't. I can't wait to watch on televison when you and your Idaho buddies march into Washington and get hit with that heat ray that the boogiemen have. Shout be a real hootenanny, huh?
It'll give me a good reason to stay up and watch the late-night monologues.
Dorks .


Honestly, what do you think would happen if an insurection was needed? Suppose the military was with the government and many of the people were as well? ALL people will never desert the government and some of them have guns, perhaps many do. Does it sound like it's worth getting all upset about? Just chill, dude, you'll be dead soon enough anyway (but have a long life). Just stick to writing your congressperson. If your Representative doesn't represent your point of view, but keeps getting elected, just go with it. It's not worth worrying about anyway, in the long run. Stay away from Safeways too.

Now suppose the military took over. That's a different story. They can do whatever they want to. Perhaps that is the most likely outcome. What would you think about that? It depends on who is runny things I suppose but probably I'd choose the military. Order is always the most important thing when there are so many people. Law and order is the first priority for a society. Haiti could use some now. So could Africa. Notice anything common to the two? Africans. Ever heard of that book, Guns, Germs and Seeds(? )? Theory is that in Europe, Asia and North America a warming after the last ice age made that temperate zone the center of social and economic growth. Warming in the equatorial zone stymied those societys. All power shifted north or south, away from the equator, where it previously had been. The first advantage of the temperate zone was that you could grow grain. Grain led to animals, etc. Black people never recovered, especialy when you consider slavery and racism. I don't know if that explains anything or not. It's just a theory (if I got it correct - not sure that I did), .




I'm pretty sure the differences between a muzzle loader and a Gatling gun change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Today is different from yesterday. The only question is, where to draw the line? You draw it on your arm...with a knife, probably:wacky
.

See what happens when you smoke pot all day?..can't form coherent sentences.

BTW, my guess is that you aren't allowed to own a legal firearm in the first place....addicted to marijuana...line E on the ATF4473 form....
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf

 

[mrgrn]

When the 2nd Amendment was written the prevalent type of firearm was the muzzleloader. Isn't that correct?

.

sure. the government had them and the public did too. they now have machine guns and tanks and we are to have a muzzleloder still?

OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost!

 

[mrgrn]

Serbu 50 BMG

here is my new deer hunting rifle

1000 yard grouping

seriously, neat gun and i have shot it

 

[Area 51]

sure. the government had them and the public did too. they now have machine guns and tanks and we are to have a muzzleloder still?

OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost!

Good logic...for simple minds.
Totally ignores the gun violence rate in America. Hell, let's just arm EVERYONE with full autos and see how long we last. (non-functioning Weirdo smiley here). Or better yet, why don't I get to have a 16-inch battleship gun in my back yard? The gubment has them . Whah, whah, whah .

 

[mrgrn]

Good logic...for simple minds.
Totally ignores the gun violence rate in America. Hell, let's just arm EVERYONE with full autos and see how long we last. (non-functioning Weirdo smiley here). Or better yet, why don't I get to have a 16-inch battleship gun in my back yard? The gubment has them . Whah, whah, whah .

the simple minded person in this thread appears to be you

we have 300 million people and you are worried a few get killed?

I heard last night hangun sales in the last week went up 60% becuase of the killings and most of that to glock.

can't lilmited and hancuff the many because of a few. more people die a day from other things and we are not making laws to stop it. it is not against the law to be a alcoholic if you are 21 and it is not in the constitution as a right but somehow nobody cares of its affect on our society but gun control is

 

[nycstripes]

Good logic...for simple minds.
Totally ignores the gun violence rate in America. Hell, let's just arm EVERYONE with full autos and see how long we last. (non-functioning Weirdo smiley here). Or better yet, why don't I get to have a 16-inch battleship gun in my back yard? The gubment has them . Whah, whah, whah .

You're definitely not the person to judge simple mindedness.....

 

[Area 51]

Question for you piles:
If one of your main reasons for being armed is to protect us from tyrany, why are you satisfied with the legal weapons you have? After all, the gubment has big weapons, really big weapons. If you were really concerned about going toe-to-toe with them how do you expect to do it with your little peashooters? Why isn't the NRA doing something about this gubment weapon superiority scenario? Are they full of bull too? Christ you defenders of the constitution don't even have flamethrowers. Hah, hah. Any Rambo worth his salt would have one of those.

You know what? Honestly, I don't think you have any concern about defending against tyrany. I think that's just a convenient talking point. I think you want your guns simply because you like your guns. It's all about you, isn't it? I, me, me, mine. It's just another lame expression of macho bravado by dim-witted narcisists. You're like a douchbag, with tattoos and a pickup truck, who swears too much and bumps chests with his buds. You get a rise out of shooting things (like we all do) but you never grew out of it. Have a stellar day.

 

[nycstripes]

I know it may come as a shock to you but the US Military is comprised of citizen soldiers....meaning that they're volunteers. Its highly unlikely that in the face of a tyranical takeover move, the citizens of the military would willingly kill off their neighbors (for people like you). They're not mindless robots or monsters. They're fellow citizens with families and friends.

I am not afraid of our military or the big guns. They're being operated by my neighbors, people I trust. Its the folks upon capitol hill that need the reminder that they serve the people....not the other way around.

Once again you prove to everyone here that you're just an old buffoon...who owns a gun by the way...as always a hypocrite.

As for the NRA, they do what they do. Defend against the majority or moronic bills meant to strip the law abiding citizens of the US from their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Area 51]

I know it may come as a shock to you but the US Military is comprised of citizen soldiers....meaning that they're volunteers. Its highly unlikely that in the face of a tyranical takeover move, the citizens of the military would willingly kill off their neighbors (for people like you). They're not mindless robots or monsters. They're fellow citizens with families and friends.

I am not afraid of our military or the big guns. They're being operated by my neighbors, people I trust. Its the folks upon capitol hill that need the reminder that they serve the people....not the other way around.

Once again you prove to everyone here that you're just an old buffoon...who owns a gun by the way...as always a hypocrite.

As for the NRA, they do what they do. Defend against the majority or moronic bills meant to strip the law abiding citizens of the US from their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

First of all, there is no mention of firearms in the Constitutuion, let alone a semi-auto pistol that is easily concealed. If you had a bow and arrow your right would be met, depending solely on who sits on the Supreme Court.

Secondly, I'll agree that some soldiers are not mindless robots. But what percentage? Again, the devil is in the details. I'll keep saying that to you until you look it up and understand what it means. You are placing a lot of trust in people even though you don't have a clue what the situation will be during insurection. Dude, friends and neighbors have a habit of disappearing when their own self-preservation or economic vitality is threatened. Live and learn. All you can truly trust is family and even then you trust but verify.

Thirdly, if an insurection is ever needed in this country it will only be after long economic depression. An economy that is anything close to adequate will keep the dogs at bay. Everything depends on the economy, including the rise of evil leaders. So then we must consider pay. If the military is paid high in relation to the general public then most military will stay with the government. That's the way it always works. Will they shoot your neighbors? They will if they feel threatened and have to choose sides - history is full of examples. Judging the possiblility of insurection by todays parameters is a mistake. It will only happen if society changes drastically in a negative way. But as we've seen elsewhere it is a distinct possiblity.

In recent times there have been two periods where insurrection was anything apporaching a threat, a very low level threat but a threat nonetheless. One was during the sixties. We all know about that. The other is now, with the Tea Freaks. Both groups, while polar opposites politicaly, had and have the potential to mount a takeover. But it'll never rise to that without a major depression and all it's accompanying hardships. Oh, and by the way, by the time that depression does roll around (and it will) the general public's weapons disadvantage will be significantly greater than it is now. It may not happen for two hundred years or more. But mark my words. Rifles and pistols aren't going to do diddly squat except for a few assassinations that are met with severe punishment (on your friends and neighbors).

Just admit it, you and your buds want your guns because you like your guns, like a junkie likes his smack.


I just noticed your avatar. Could you please explain the meaning of it? I don't get the connection between Obama, health care and death.

 

[RockyMt]

Are you fookin' SERIOUS? "I don't understand the connection between Oh-Bomb-Us, health care and death?!" well, that's telling.........Secondly, you criticize someone for owning a gun, but you have alluded to the fact you shoot....hmmmmmm. And if yer willing to let yer gubmint dictate what type of gun, or what calliber they are willing to "allow" you to own, are you also willing to let them restrict yer car to a maximum speed of 60 MPH? Or the HP of yer bikes to, let's say, 35 HP? After all "no one" "Needs" to go over 60 mph, and no one "needs" to have a motorcycle capable of sub 20 second 1/4 miles.........Where does it end my friend? I prefer to live in a nation that's leaders fear their populace, who know, that if they do not uphold the Constitution, they WILL be removed, one way or another. Just as we need a leader whom other countries not only respect, but also fear, because it's a jungle out there son, and the present policy of singing Cum-ba-ya doesn't seem to be working....(China anyone?) In the end, be thankfull there are those who seek not only to protect their liberties, but yours as well, even if yer too stoned to realize it...........:banghead

Semper Fi! :rockon

-Rocky-

 

[Doughnut Spaghetti]

Its the folks upon capitol hill that need the reminder that they serve the people....not the other way around.

Couldn't be more correct sir.

I'm neither a Republican or a Democrate. All both parties do is complain, and never agree on anything. It's sad really. Nothing ever gets done that actually benefits us citizens. It's always who is right and that's it bottom line.

States are suing the government because of the mandatory health care laws, but require all their citizens to pay for car insurance. WTF. Obama care is just so terrible. Your right lets keep health care at a cheap $600, stupid poor people. Aren't happy with minimun wage and being in dept to the medical industry and insurance agencies for the rest of their lives. I know I"m happy with my Step Father getting cancer and being refused by insurance companies when my mother got cut down to 75% time for her job.

Mean while our soldiers and many other people the live there are being killed over control of some oil so fat cats can get rich. Oh well...let's watch some sports and reality TV and ignore the truth. There's no global warming right?

Don't worry, "The convenience you want is now mandatory. Shut up. Be Happy!" Jello Biafra

And this new attention on "gun control." It's about the same thing conservatives use abortion for. To get votes and media attention for there BS ideas. Look at England. No guns more violence. Ban guns, what's gonna happen?

Awesome now the criminals have them, just like they have and always will. Blah Blah Blah.

Mean while nothing gets done and no one cares.

 

[nycstripes]

First of all, there is no mention of firearms in the Constitutuion, let alone a semi-auto pistol that is easily concealed. If you had a bow and arrow your right would be met, depending solely on who sits on the Supreme Court.

For your reading pleasure....

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.





As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

As ratified by the States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution
In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

• deterring undemocratic government;
• repelling invasion; (see WW2. Why Japan never considered an invasion of the US.)
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• enabling the people to organize a militia system,

Find me something in writing that matters what kind of firearm a US Citizen is allowed to have as pertains to the Constitution....... its amazing how few brain cells you really do have.


As for the rest of your lame reply...not worth my time. Your assumptions are baseless and retarded as usual. I am not going to get into a supposed scenario where the military delares martial law and assumes command over the country like in 3rd world nations.

As for my avatar...if it annoys you, then I am happy. Nothing Government takes control of works, why should health care be any different?