quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


Yeah, you have a point, you also have bans on swords and regulations on knives.

if gun control had worked you would have had no excuse for sword and knife control

< Message edited by BamaD -- 1/3/2013 11:20:07 AM >

(in reply to Focus50)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


Yeah, you have a point, you also have bans on swords and regulations on knives.

if gun control had worked you would have had no excuse for sword and knife control

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags.

this from someone who claims to be a responsible gun owner, huh?
this attitude (imo) is what makes the "its my right" types freakin scary..
you would rather kill others doing their job and die in a hail of bullets yourself than give up your guns?
wow, just like the various crazy shooters in the news..

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags.

JLF, that is insane.

quote:

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags.

this from someone who claims to be a responsible gun owner, huh?
this attitude (imo) is what makes the "its my right" types freakin scary..
you would rather kill others doing their job and die in a hail of bullets yourself than give up your guns?
wow, just like the various crazy shooters in the news..

When they repeal the 2nd amendment, the rest of them (the bill of rights) is not long going to be the law of the land. History has shown this to be a stead fast sequence of events, take away guns, then speech, then religion.

Proved in 1917

and in 1933
then again in 1949

It has happened a few times since it started.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags

They will not take your weapons or ammo but they will make you register ....again… even if already registered. You will have your guns to love the rest of your life... you will just not be able to sell them or will them...The only way they will change hands is to the police in a buy out.

At least that is what I have heard...could be wrong.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags.

this from someone who claims to be a responsible gun owner, huh?
this attitude (imo) is what makes the "its my right" types freakin scary..
you would rather kill others doing their job and die in a hail of bullets yourself than give up your guns?
wow, just like the various crazy shooters in the news..

When they repeal the 2nd amendment, the rest of them (the bill of rights) is not long going to be the law of the land. History has shown this to be a stead fast sequence of events, take away guns, then speech, then religion.

Proved in 1917

and in 1933
then again in 1949

It has happened a few times since it started.

dude, you are a little late on that.. Imo, you already live in a Police State, not a Police State like 3rd world countries but no where near the "free country" you seem to think you have.. under your patriot act, etc, all they need to do is say you are a "terrorist" and you have no freakin rights as it stands today.. they have already said Assange (whose only "weapon" was leaking info on the internet) is a "terrorist".. your guns wont stop them if they wanna throw your ass in jail for some perceived wrong.. I am sure if you fight them then (you) dead is fine with them too tho..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


Yeah, you have a point, you also have bans on swords and regulations on knives.

if gun control had worked you would have had no excuse for sword and knife control

Lucky you; one last reply since you clearly suck at your share of listening.

It terms of firearms deaths and esp putting an end to potential spree killings, the gun controls instituted since the Port Arthur massacre have made a huge impact. And yeah, including on the honest, law-abiding gun owner. That's our collateral damage - as compared to the perpetual body count in the US.

Swords and knives were/are a separate issue. Firstly, it's never been legal to carry a sword in public - waaaaay before Port Arthur. I mean, WTF, what reason is there to other than as an offensive weapon? You can own them but you're responsible for securing them.

Though I don't think it's on a national basis like the Federal Government's gun controls, a few years ago in my state (New South Wales - NSW) there were a spate of ugly brawls and incidents involving knives, and esp being carried as concealed weapons. Particularly amongst teenagers.... So the state government stepped in. There is no ban on knives per se', but if you're caught carrying as a likely concealed weapon, where once it probably would've been confiscated now you're very likely to get arrested and charged.

Knives & swords = ONE lesser issue. Guns, a whole other matter. As an American, I'm sure it's a totally alien concept for you that a governement would actually try and protect its people *from themselves* on at least some level.

Your notion that "other weapons" fill the void and somehow suggest our violence and murder rate is comparable to the US is an utter nonsense. The US is the most dangerous and violent western nation to live in - by many times over. All this "guns don't kill people; people kill people etc" has a truth to it. What your 2nd amendment really does is act as the great enabler to do so.

Now, the graffiti you've been spamming this board with is off the chart. It's a discussion board - that's talk AND listen. You've had your fun and I've been a good sport. Tazzy was too good a sport. Me, one of my life rules (which I've broken with this post) is not to waste my time talking to those not prepared to listen. Plucking "facts" out of the air the way you have has been over indulged. Grow tha fuck up and post some actual sense or be off with your big bad gun somewheres...!

Now, do the impossible and impress me - I friggin' DARE YOU.

Focus.

quote:

I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I am going to address a one of the more extreme views against the second amendment.

1) The second amendment made sense when the only weapons available were muzzle loading muskets.

This thought is flawed, since at the time, muzzle loaders were the supreme weapon of the day. The so called "assault weapons" everyone is screaming about are not two things.

They are not Assault Weapons. An Assault Weapon is a select fire standard issue weapon of the military. What is actually in question is the civilian rifles based on military frames.

They are not the weapon of choice for most crimes committed by people with guns. Those are pistols and shotguns.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

quote:

I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

I submit to those people in the US that are against guns and call themselves patriots are actually the very people that Jefferson warned about.

How do you people propose that patriots willing to fight for the freedoms of our constitution do that if the government makes laws that restrict or even take away those very rights you so devoutly claim to support?

The second amendment meant that the civilians of this country have guns at their disposal that are comparable in some respects as what the military have.

The creation of the National Guard did not end that responsibility of the private citizen to protect the rights from tyrants. Many states still maintain state militias, as set out in the Constitution. Texas is one such state. Today those forces are referred to as State Defense Forces.

State Defense Force members supply all of their own gear and ammo.

Think about it.

A Ban on Assault weapons is in violation of the 2nd amendment, since it limits the ability of State Defense Forces to maintain a viable force of arms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I will make it simple.

I own 12 firearms.

I have a few thousand rounds of ammo for each one.

If the second amendment is ever repealed, when they come to take my guns, they better bring a fucking load of body bags.