quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

It kinda does since in reality any restriction on guns goes against the right to bear arms....

And you can still have that right to bear arms.
But do you actually HAVE to bear them.... in public??

We can have guns too. That would fit your constitution.
What we can't do is have them in public or be able to shoot others willy-nilly and claim a feeble 'self defense' plea.
In most civilized countries, if you shoot someone, it's called murder or manslaughter; not self defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


we do have the right to carry sheep.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

One Federal judge after another says we do have the right to carry outside the home. Otherwise it is a privilege not a right. If you don't believe in self defense you are a sheep. Self defense is the most basic human right there is.

Interesting, please continue, your logic is faultless as always

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten


I think for myself and question when something doesnt sit right with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten


I think for myself and question when something doesnt sit right with me.

I think the gun is thinking for you

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten


I think for myself and question when something doesnt sit right with me.

I think the gun is thinking for you

No Guns are inanimate, they cant think, but when my gun thinks for me, I'll be sure to let you know...

That is if you havent been killed because you cant defend yourself in your country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


we do have the right to carry sheep.

Interesting, please continue, your logic is faultless as always

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent



I'm living proof that you can enter and exit the US without getting shot, or even seeing a gun,

quote:

You live in New York.
You don't remember when New York just wanted to register "assault weapons" Which at the the press conference included at least one bolt action rifle.
A year later they were required to turn them in in spite of all the promises to the contrary.
They may not have taken your guns but that doesn't mean they didn't confiscate some. But when they came for the Freemasons you weren't a Freemason so you didn't care.
You do realize that your post has little to do with mine. I didn't say they had but that many want to. Not having taken yours yet doesn't mean they don't want to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You live in New York.
You don't remember when New York just wanted to register "assault weapons" Which at the the press conference included at least one bolt action rifle.
A year later they were required to turn them in in spite of all the promises to the contrary.
They may not have taken your guns but that doesn't mean they didn't confiscate some. But when they came for the Freemasons you weren't a Freemason so you didn't care.
You do realize that your post has little to do with mine. I didn't say they had but that many want to. Not having taken yours yet doesn't mean they don't want to.

The ban doesn't take all guns away, and is largely a joke anyway since manufacturers are just making slight modifications to skirt the law. People who favor gun control don't necessarily favor banning all guns. I know you're worried about a slippery slope but there is no significant political momentum seeking an absolute ban.

The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Not guns, arms. There is a lot of technology that can fit under that word, technology the Founders could not have possibly imagined. Nobody can seriously advocate private ownership a rocket launchers or tanks then it is already a given that absolutism in the other direction is also unworkable. The only question then is: Where do we draw the lines?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You live in New York.
You don't remember when New York just wanted to register "assault weapons" Which at the the press conference included at least one bolt action rifle.
A year later they were required to turn them in in spite of all the promises to the contrary.
They may not have taken your guns but that doesn't mean they didn't confiscate some. But when they came for the Freemasons you weren't a Freemason so you didn't care.
You do realize that your post has little to do with mine. I didn't say they had but that many want to. Not having taken yours yet doesn't mean they don't want to.

The ban doesn't take all guns away, and is largely a joke anyway since manufacturers are just making slight modifications to skirt the law. People who favor gun control don't necessarily favor banning all guns. I know you're worried about a slippery slope but there is no significant political momentum seeking an absolute ban.

The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Not guns, arms. There is a lot of technology that can fit under that word, technology the Founders could not have possibly imagined. Nobody can seriously advocate private ownership a rocket launchers or tanks then it is already a given that absolutism in the other direction is also unworkable. The only question then is: Where do we draw the lines?

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You live in New York.
You don't remember when New York just wanted to register "assault weapons" Which at the the press conference included at least one bolt action rifle.
A year later they were required to turn them in in spite of all the promises to the contrary.
They may not have taken your guns but that doesn't mean they didn't confiscate some. But when they came for the Freemasons you weren't a Freemason so you didn't care.
You do realize that your post has little to do with mine. I didn't say they had but that many want to. Not having taken yours yet doesn't mean they don't want to.

The ban doesn't take all guns away, and is largely a joke anyway since manufacturers are just making slight modifications to skirt the law. People who favor gun control don't necessarily favor banning all guns. I know you're worried about a slippery slope but there is no significant political momentum seeking an absolute ban.

The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Not guns, arms. There is a lot of technology that can fit under that word, technology the Founders could not have possibly imagined. Nobody can seriously advocate private ownership a rocket launchers or tanks then it is already a given that absolutism in the other direction is also unworkable. The only question then is: Where do we draw the lines?

First it starts with just x gun because its really dangerous.... then it moves to y guns because they can be dangerous...

Then its all guns

Take DC for example where the average time it takes to get a fire arm legally is just under a year....Where gun laws were passed in 76 and gun crimes tripled....

You dont seem to understand that the government doesnt stop at just one type of gun, they want a disarmed public so there is no ability to fight back, its why the constitution has the amendments it has. Its why we have a usa to begin with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You live in New York.
You don't remember when New York just wanted to register "assault weapons" Which at the the press conference included at least one bolt action rifle.
A year later they were required to turn them in in spite of all the promises to the contrary.
They may not have taken your guns but that doesn't mean they didn't confiscate some. But when they came for the Freemasons you weren't a Freemason so you didn't care.
You do realize that your post has little to do with mine. I didn't say they had but that many want to. Not having taken yours yet doesn't mean they don't want to.

The ban doesn't take all guns away, and is largely a joke anyway since manufacturers are just making slight modifications to skirt the law. People who favor gun control don't necessarily favor banning all guns. I know you're worried about a slippery slope but there is no significant political momentum seeking an absolute ban.

The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Not guns, arms. There is a lot of technology that can fit under that word, technology the Founders could not have possibly imagined. Nobody can seriously advocate private ownership a rocket launchers or tanks then it is already a given that absolutism in the other direction is also unworkable. The only question then is: Where do we draw the lines?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You live in New York.
You don't remember when New York just wanted to register "assault weapons" Which at the the press conference included at least one bolt action rifle.
A year later they were required to turn them in in spite of all the promises to the contrary.
They may not have taken your guns but that doesn't mean they didn't confiscate some. But when they came for the Freemasons you weren't a Freemason so you didn't care.
You do realize that your post has little to do with mine. I didn't say they had but that many want to. Not having taken yours yet doesn't mean they don't want to.

The ban doesn't take all guns away, and is largely a joke anyway since manufacturers are just making slight modifications to skirt the law. People who favor gun control don't necessarily favor banning all guns. I know you're worried about a slippery slope but there is no significant political momentum seeking an absolute ban.

The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Not guns, arms. There is a lot of technology that can fit under that word, technology the Founders could not have possibly imagined. Nobody can seriously advocate private ownership a rocket launchers or tanks then it is already a given that absolutism in the other direction is also unworkable. The only question then is: Where do we draw the lines?

You don't have to literally ban them if you put on so many restrictions that a person can't exercise their rights. As Holder said before becoming AG the goal is to make gun ownership a mark of shame so people won't stop a gradual restriction till the right is gone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

I agree to a point Bama, But I believe its less control and more about fostering dependence when you keep everyone "safe, happy and healthy" its exerts a level of helplessness and dependence on the government which makes them less likely to rebel. Because when your dependent on the government to eat, stay well, work, get anywhere why would you tell them no or stop when it could result in them to stop supplying the things youve grown dependent on. Farming/ers is a great example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

I agree to a point Bama, But I believe its less control and more about fostering dependence when you keep everyone "safe, happy and healthy" its exerts a level of helplessness and dependence on the government which makes them less likely to rebel. Because when your dependent on the government to eat, stay well, work, get anywhere why would you tell them no or stop when it could result in them to stop supplying the things youve grown dependent on. Farming/ers is a great example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

I agree to a point Bama, But I believe its less control and more about fostering dependence when you keep everyone "safe, happy and healthy" its exerts a level of helplessness and dependence on the government which makes them less likely to rebel. Because when your dependent on the government to eat, stay well, work, get anywhere why would you tell them no or stop when it could result in them to stop supplying the things youve grown dependent on. Farming/ers is a great example.

Clearly, you don't know any actual farmers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Bullshit. I have literally hundreds of farming neighbors, and guess what? They're paying their taxes, and not living off the government.

So you knew one farmer. Good for you.

And you're still full of shit.