there was a push in england to ban pointy knives. Not carrying them (already illegal) but banned outright. Thats right, no more steak knives. the people cant be trusted. This is the ultimate goal of any restriction, on any freedom. these people are insain. just plain insain. there is no end. when the pointy knives are banned it will be plain knives. then saws. then pens. Its a slippery slope because you are dealing with people who suppress their instincts and live in a fantasy. Willing to give up Scary guns is willingness to give up all gun, all knives, freedom to amass, freedom to speak. Its that simple.
I've Lost My Passion For The 2A
- Thread starter Rocketmedic
- Start date
- Status
saltydog
Member
Huh?
dmattaponi
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2015
- Messages
- 4
(To the OP)...Funny you should mention it, because I've been thinking that you and others like you should turn in your freedom of expression, because it is obviously mentally impaired and potentially dangerous to the lives of others if not kept is check. In fact, although I was once all for freedom of speech, having now witnessed all of the carnage caused by people like you expressing your dangerous views, I now think I'm ready for you and yours to turn it in to those of us who know better. Thanks.
Well, we've tried prohibition of alchohol, drugs, various other consumer items.... we know how well those have all gone. Do you really think we should try prohibition of another highly-demanded consumer item?
Particularly a consumer item that literally 99.9+% of people can own and use without harming others?
Particularly a consumer item that literally 99.9+% of people can own and use without harming others?
AlexanderA
Member
Such a proposal is an absolute non-starter. Not even the antigunners would go for it. (Universally-recognized, shall-issue concealed carry? Who are you kidding?)
The antis won't stop until we have 100% disarmament. To them, any "reasonable compromise" is not an end point, but a temporary way station. That's why they have to be opposed at every turn. In fact we should be pushing to roll back existing restrictions.
The antis won't stop until we have 100% disarmament. To them, any "reasonable compromise" is not an end point, but a temporary way station. That's why they have to be opposed at every turn. In fact we should be pushing to roll back existing restrictions.
jrod
Member
The 2A doesn't give me the right. I was born with the right as a free human being...
onelastshot,
We can only reasonably cite the firearms used and not what was present in some way. If we went beyond the murder weapons we'd have no reasonable stopping point and be counting firearms that weren't at hand or even on the premises. So, a baseline of "murder weapon" is needed.
We can only reasonably cite the firearms used and not what was present in some way. If we went beyond the murder weapons we'd have no reasonable stopping point and be counting firearms that weren't at hand or even on the premises. So, a baseline of "murder weapon" is needed.
Given this thread and your other comments lately, seems to me that you and this guy should get along nicely.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...&set=a.1125044935153.113535.1498039563&type=3
XRap said:
I don't care for Ted Cruz either. He's a grandstanding opportunist - as are about 75% of politicians in both major parties. You're free to disagree.
But I still don't support any new restrictions on gun ownership and would like to see restrictions on NFA items loosened or repealed.
The original poster's views are his and his alone.
most crimes committed with firearms are committed with handguns. After that its shotguns. Then, its rifles. Rifles make up a very small part of the murder weapon equation. This is true of robbery, murder and spree killings. The reason you hear assault weapon thrown around is because yelling "all out gun ban!" will get you rejection from even the moderate anti gun people. The OP seemed interested in getting rid of auto pistols as well, so i guess hes being honest and non hypocritical, but people need to realize criminals dont give up guns. Its an unpopular and scary thought, but as long as we have armed police, and armed military, and intercontinental shipping, no matter how many guns you remove, they will still be available.
increasing the difficulty of obtaining arms serves the criminal element. What most people do not consider, however, is that the more difficult you make the obtainment, the more aggressive the criminal who prospers.
In counties with strong gun control, you have thugs and petty criminals armed
In countries with all out gun control, you have cartels, warlords, and nomadic gangs.
In countries with full and unlimited gun control you have mass extermination programs and death camps. Human nature is to be at equal or better capability of your enemies. Those who with to disarm the masses are in keeping with their nature.
Those you wish to disarm themselves, and readily do as told, are a truly scary group.
increasing the difficulty of obtaining arms serves the criminal element. What most people do not consider, however, is that the more difficult you make the obtainment, the more aggressive the criminal who prospers.
In counties with strong gun control, you have thugs and petty criminals armed
In countries with all out gun control, you have cartels, warlords, and nomadic gangs.
In countries with full and unlimited gun control you have mass extermination programs and death camps. Human nature is to be at equal or better capability of your enemies. Those who with to disarm the masses are in keeping with their nature.
Those you wish to disarm themselves, and readily do as told, are a truly scary group.
Vern Humphrey
Member
And I really don't think we need freedom of speech or freedom of the press, so here's my idea -- a voluntary exchange of all computers for a slate and a piece of chalk, and confiscation of televisions, radios, telephones and a death sentence for speaking out against the government.
Yep, SKS, but note the year.
OP:
The beauty of the 2nd amendment is not that is allows the right to possess firearms, rather it affirms that one has the right to elect to, or elect not to possess firearms. I respect your decision to forego owning semi-automatic firearms. I expect that in kind, you respect my right to keep my S&W, M&P-10.
That stated, go research my posts from when I was high school principal in Hillman, Michigan. Also, search for my posts about my experience living under the military dictatorship in Santiago, Chile. I hope that you never have the life experiences that I have had. If you do, I can only say, it will change your current views of the 2nd amendment, and semi-auto firearms.
I wish you the very best, and hope you continue to frequent THR.
Geno (formerly known as "Doc2005")
The beauty of the 2nd amendment is not that is allows the right to possess firearms, rather it affirms that one has the right to elect to, or elect not to possess firearms. I respect your decision to forego owning semi-automatic firearms. I expect that in kind, you respect my right to keep my S&W, M&P-10.
That stated, go research my posts from when I was high school principal in Hillman, Michigan. Also, search for my posts about my experience living under the military dictatorship in Santiago, Chile. I hope that you never have the life experiences that I have had. If you do, I can only say, it will change your current views of the 2nd amendment, and semi-auto firearms.
I wish you the very best, and hope you continue to frequent THR.
Geno (formerly known as "Doc2005")
also, why is $5K "more reasonable"......what is wrong with $200?.....
how would a higher cost tax stamp have done anything to curb the recent bouts of violence that weve seen?......none of the recent bouts of mass shootings have been done with NFA items.....
crimes with NFA items are already exceedingly rare, to the point of being a non-issue.......what would raising the cost to $5K do, other than keeping lawful citizens from owning firearms, that are in all honesty, no more dangerous than any other firearm, and are only on regulated due to arbitrary traits.
That's true. Crimes with NFA items are virtually nonexistent - why would you make it harder to own NFA items?
You could at least make a rational argument for requiring a similar process for everything based on that. Except that we've been mass producing guns here since since the 1840's - so we have TONS of them that are not and never will be registered.
You could at least make a rational argument for requiring a similar process for everything based on that. Except that we've been mass producing guns here since since the 1840's - so we have TONS of them that are not and never will be registered.
gbran
Member
Gun Control is kinda like trying to solve drunken driving by making it harder for sober people to obtain and possess cars. (some THR member from the past)
maxxhavoc
Member
It would be obvious if you were one of the new generation of elitist "progressives." It's so they can have guns and the "peasants" can't. It's not about guns, it's about control.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
The Second Amendment has zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with mass shootings. Same for hunting. Prior to Heller, nothing to do with personal self defense.
Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It tells the purpose of that entire package of amendments.
There is an overarching reason for the BOR: To enable the citizenry to guard against an abuse of power by the State.
Without the Second Amendment, there would have been the Nine Privileges.
These rights exist as human rights, just because you're upright and breathing. They exist in the absence of any government whatsoever: They in no way are "granted" by government. Our constitution enumerates them as restrictions which limit government.
Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It tells the purpose of that entire package of amendments.
There is an overarching reason for the BOR: To enable the citizenry to guard against an abuse of power by the State.
Without the Second Amendment, there would have been the Nine Privileges.
These rights exist as human rights, just because you're upright and breathing. They exist in the absence of any government whatsoever: They in no way are "granted" by government. Our constitution enumerates them as restrictions which limit government.
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,711
So, tell me...of all the seriously gun-restrictive cities, which one's crime rate is low? Chicago? DC? Baltimore?
Maybe NYC, but they also practice stop-and-frisk, which others don't. So, infringing upon the 4th Amendment may be The Answer. You think?
"Youah papers! Vere ah youah papers?"
If your goal was to incite widespread, overt resistance/revolution, that would be a good start. Anyone stupid enough to put his signature on that Executive Order would find himself up to his arse in alligators pretty quickly, I think. I'm not counting on the press, but YouTube vids and word-of-keyboard would spread those images pretty quickly.
I could be wrong, but I'm an old bastard who has had a full life, and I don't have much to lose. I have a lot more faith in our armed servicemembers than you do (of course, I was an enlisted man for 21 years).
I understand that today's junior enlisteds (and junior officers) are drawn from a population that is far different from the one I grew up in. For one, they went through an entirely different school system/indoctrination than I did.
And I may be unrealistic in believing that their oath of enlistment means something to them...it may not, especially if they have no understanding of or appreciation for our Constitution.
But, I'll take my chances. As I say, I've had a reasonably good life, and very few regrets.
Maybe NYC, but they also practice stop-and-frisk, which others don't. So, infringing upon the 4th Amendment may be The Answer. You think?
"Youah papers! Vere ah youah papers?"
Yeah, that would play well on the six o'clock news.
If your goal was to incite widespread, overt resistance/revolution, that would be a good start. Anyone stupid enough to put his signature on that Executive Order would find himself up to his arse in alligators pretty quickly, I think. I'm not counting on the press, but YouTube vids and word-of-keyboard would spread those images pretty quickly.
I could be wrong, but I'm an old bastard who has had a full life, and I don't have much to lose. I have a lot more faith in our armed servicemembers than you do (of course, I was an enlisted man for 21 years).
I understand that today's junior enlisteds (and junior officers) are drawn from a population that is far different from the one I grew up in. For one, they went through an entirely different school system/indoctrination than I did.
And I may be unrealistic in believing that their oath of enlistment means something to them...it may not, especially if they have no understanding of or appreciation for our Constitution.
But, I'll take my chances. As I say, I've had a reasonably good life, and very few regrets.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
