quote:


When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

Your point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

quote:


When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

1. The right to bear arms applies to those who are part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't read that citizens, being necessary to the security of the USA, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's a little more specific than that.


But let's say it wasn't. Let's say that everyone, from Charlie Manson (if he ever got paroled) to Jim Jones (although koolaid is certainly more humane than anthrax) to the bloods and crips and every other gang could be considered part of a well organized militia.


But wait.. if you've been convicted of Domestic Violence, use certain drugs illegally or have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment, then no, I believe you can't own a firearm or ammo., not according to the Gun Control Act of 1968. I've known hot heads with fiery tempers who might well have made horrific choices if they had access to firearms that killed many people very efficiently, very easily and very quickly. Why just shoot other students when you can blow up the whole school, or the whole post office, or the whole community center.


I feel so much safer with that well regulated militia ensuring the security of the country. I just get get warm fuzzies knowing tthose white supremacists are stockpiling to keep me safe. Or rather, keep others safe from me.

As if ak-47's could do anything against a blackhawk. Automatic weapons have next to nothing to do with national security and everything to do with murder and intimidation.

It's silly to think that any weapons you or I could buy would hep keep a government at bay. Embrace the horror: for good or ill those days are long gone.


ok, I've rambled enough now

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind.

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind.

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

But but but......I think I've pointed out we do do give guns to our younger citizens under parental supervision, including 10 year olds. Many times they have access to guns in the home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind.

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

But but but......I think I've pointed out we do do give guns to our younger citizens under parental supervision, including 10 year olds. Many times they have access to guns in the home.

I was referring to unfettered access and ownership.

quote:

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

When you argue to infringe on a right you argue to eliminate it.

You yourself have argued that guns shouldn't be given to under-18s, though the 2nd Amendment was written by people who clearly had people younger than that in mind.

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

But but but......I think I've pointed out we do do give guns to our younger citizens under parental supervision, including 10 year olds. Many times they have access to guns in the home.

I was referring to unfettered access and ownership.

Like that psycho that got an assault rifle by legal means and then went to a small elementary school called 'Sandy Hook'?

Kids are not the idiots parents or adults think them to be. They can be quite crafty and cunning when they want to be. What they lack, is wisdom and experience. Unfortunately, so do adults. Kids know where the gun safe is. And making a duplicate key and/or finding the combination to open the safe is not to hard either. The parent can not watch that gun safe 24/7. And most likely is not aware of any wrong doing until the slaughter is over.

I think you understand me well enough BamaD, that I'm not pushing to "ban 'em all". My knowledge and experience has been, when kids get ahold of such weapons, and have a REALLY tough time with life......only bad things follow in the wake of their foot falls. We are not talking the kid that learns proper firearm safety, isn't bullied in school, a star performer grade wise and a model young citizen; that's an absolute fantasy.

That these kids can not think things through or learn to find alterative ways of dealing with life's problems, should be a very disturbing thought to anyone (gun owner and not). When they feel trapped, alone, surrounded on all sides by the enemy, with little or no friends, and no one they feel they can trust.....the firearm provides a very easy way of getting payback.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then?

In order for your position to be valid you would have to eliminate age requirements for everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then?

In order for your position to be valid you would have to eliminate age requirements for everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

They are not full citizens yet, another red herring.
That would be like giving a 10 year old the right to vote.

And the 2nd Amendment specifies 'full citizens' rather than 'people', does it? Its writers wouldn't have wanted 10 year olds to use guns, then?

In order for your position to be valid you would have to eliminate age requirements for everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
He seems to be under the impression that because they let kids do shit in the past, that we should be letting them do the same things today. Of course this is the same poster who referenced the Cartwrights as an example of how we live so maybe he's just been watching too many old westerns and doesn't quite grasp that that isn't how we still live. Now personally I always thought he was smarter than that but after reading his last posts I am beginning to wonder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Be consistent call for 12 year old miners.