|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 20, 2008 20:15:59 GMT -5
Being outnumbered doesn't make a person incorrect.  Of course, it doesn't make a person automatically right, either. Sometimes people are 'bering outnumbered" because their ideas are really, really stupid. Just like Saunterelles last post. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 20, 2008 21:36:42 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this happens. It would save many lives. How? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 20, 2008 23:08:52 GMT -5
I sincerely hope this happens. It would save many lives. How? No more drive-bys, no more school shootings that kill many people, etc. Basically, it gives people the chance to escape instead of being mowed down by someone who can quickly pull the trigger. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 20, 2008 23:14:27 GMT -5
No more drive-bys, no more school shootings that kill many people, etc. Basically, it gives people the chance to escape instead of being mowed down by someone who can quickly pull the trigger. LOL! ;D Right.... The thugs and criminals are going to turn their guns in once the law is imposed, and everyone will live happily ever after. The lions will even sleep with the sheep. I love extreme liberal polyannaism and naivity. If only life was so simple. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 20, 2008 23:27:15 GMT -5
No more drive-bys, no more school shootings that kill many people, etc. Basically, it gives people the chance to escape instead of being mowed down by someone who can quickly pull the trigger. just when i thought you couldn't get any dumber you come up with this little gem! i bet you believe that if we outlaw wife beater t-shirts it would end domestic violence, right? btw, how many bullets have you been able to outrun lately? |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 20, 2008 23:35:46 GMT -5
No more drive-bys, no more school shootings that kill many people, etc. Basically, it gives people the chance to escape instead of being mowed down by someone who can quickly pull the trigger. OK, now that you have given your mistaken opinion, how about some FACTS. YOu know, those troublesome things that can be verified? And, check this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6rEnEQkYaQHell, an 1858 Remington cap & ball revolver isn't all that slow to shoot and reload if you have some extra cylinders. Revolvers would work just fine for most drive bys. Usually not that many rounds expended. And, there are not all that many mass shootings. There would be even fewer if more honest citizens were allowed their civil rights and allowed to carry. No, I guess not, you prefer that honest citizens be good little victims to the thugs. You prefer to see women raped because they have no means to defend themselves. You prefer a senior citizen beaten to death to allowing her to have a gun. VERY nice of you. Yes, your nobility is admirable. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 20, 2008 23:59:35 GMT -5
I'm fine with people owning guns as long as they're not semi-auto. Why do you feel semi-autos are necessary?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 21, 2008 0:05:01 GMT -5
I'm fine with people owning guns as long as they're not semi-auto. Why do you feel semi-autos are necessary? Utility Fun The 2nd Amendment The wording of the Miller Decision The Heller decision. I see you are an animist. Somehow it is the tool that controls the person. Now, how about some FACTS to back up your position. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 21, 2008 0:18:54 GMT -5
I'm fine with people owning guns as long as they're not semi-auto. Why do you feel semi-autos are necessary? why do you feel they are unnecessary? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 21, 2008 11:45:18 GMT -5
And just how are they NEEDED?
An ignorant statement considering thousands of innocent people are killed by semi-auto weapons every year. Drive bys, stray bullets, school shootings, and shootings in crowded places would have less people killed if the shooter is forced to reload.
WRONG. As you know, semi-auto weapons weren't around during the time of our country's founding. The "arms" our founding fathers intended organized militias to have were NOT semi-auto.
And what wording would that be? The Miller case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings," which never took place. By the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.
It was not a case related to semi-auto weapon ownership. It related to handgun ownership in general in Wash DC.
Semi-auto weapons are unnecessary. They result in catastrophic loss of life that would be lessened if they were banned.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 21, 2008 12:48:57 GMT -5
And just how are they NEEDED? See the shop and home owners who held off thugs during the RK riots just by appearing with evil semi autos. Also, lot of sport shooting uses semis. An ignorant statement considering thousands of innocent people are killed by semi-auto weapons every year. Drive bys, stray bullets, school shootings, and shootings in crowded places would have less people killed if the shooter is forced to reload. Apply your reasoning to cars. Exactly the same arguments. Did you know that EVERY drive by uses a car? WRONG. As you know, semi-auto weapons weren't around during the time of our country's founding. The "arms" our founding fathers intended organized militias to have were NOT semi-auto. the intent was that the citizen be equiped with "the sword, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier." Up to and including cannon - otherwise letters of marque are useless. Also, a good portion of the artillery units in the Civil War started as privately funded militia units with their own cannon. History is against you. And what wording would that be? The Miller case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings," which never took place. By the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings. The utility to milita or militar use clause in that decision. By the wording in Miller, anything that can be shown to have utility in the military is protected under the 2nd. Learn to read and reason. It was not a case related to semi-auto weapon ownership. It related to handgun ownership in general in Wash DC. Read it again. Semi-auto weapons are unnecessary. They result in catastrophic loss of life that would be lessened if they were banned. Where is your PROOF of that statement? Where are the FACTS to back it up? And, what would you do if somehow all semi autos were confiscated and the death rate by means of firearm didn't go down? Or, more likely, went up. What would you confiscate next? |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 21, 2008 14:00:18 GMT -5
Saunterelle... radio, television and the Internet were not around when the Founders were crafting the Bill of Rights. By your logic, the First Amendment does not apply to them so therefore the government may immediately remove and control all access.
Very, very poor logic in your argument on that point. And very dangerous I would say.
You've also trotted out a couple of the other common canards... thousands of deaths, and the Miller decision. I would submit to you that you will have a hard time proving the "thousands of deaths" claim, and clearly you've never read Miller nor have you analyzed it in perspective with all of the other related case law over the past couple of hundred years.
Put simply, Miller does not mean what the leftist gun grabbers have claimed it to mean all this time. I should also point out to you the need to refresh your talking points. Even before the issuance of decision on Heller a number of prominent gun grabbers had conceded that their reliance on Miller... the entire "militia argument" was and always had been a canard.
Let's say that all privately owned semi-autos were banned tomorrow. What, exactly, is going to keep container fulls of weapons made off shore from being smuggled through our ports? That is, after all, where those gangbangers who are arming themselves with things like real AK-47's (not the semi-auto only ones that citizens in this country can own) are getting them. 99 plus percent of lawfully owned firearms are never used in the commission or furtherance of a crime. There is no utopian solution no matter how much you wish that there were one.
To the points above let me add one thing... I am a shooter. I enjoy target shooting and I've been a hunter in my time although I haven't hunted in many years. I've trained myself quite thoroughly and continue to. A good deal of my training has gone to my past career in law enforcement. I started back in the day when most all of us carried or were issued six shot revolvers.
While I am not as good as I once was with a revolver I can still dispense six rounds into three targets in around three seconds or a bit less. That is starting with the weapon holstered. I can reload in another second or two, and repeat. And I can keep doing that until I run out of ammo. There are people who are better than me, some are a lot better. Most are not nearly as effective but could be with not a lot of training. Pretty much knocks down your strawman about all those bullets in the air from a semi-auto, but then thats not the point.
The point is that while you can try to keep weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens, it is impossible to legislate a criminal out of business, nor is it possible to legislate lunacy. And when you come right down to it, it is criminals and lunatics who are really at issue, since the firearm is itself an inanimate object.
I get that you don't like firearms, or are just pathologically frightened of them. Thats your choice and that's okay. I like them and I am not frightened of them, rather I have great respect for the power they can project and handle them accordingly... as a potentially powerful tool that is used for specifics jobs.
So don't like firearms... but don't infringe on my liberty to enjoy them.
|
|
