As a head of household a 44 magnum is a preferred indoor defense weapon. The main purpose of the large barrel is to intimidate the assailant and not even have to fire. Nobody wants to have to fire so any psychological edge is appreciated. Having to have to use weapons several times for self defense I feel the size of the weapon was a definite factor in a peaceful solution. Assault weapons I don't have an opinion on.
Democrats are hypocrites
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Quote from axeman:
Don't even bother Mav.
Bung is obviously a typical american or has been
completely brainwashed by the anti-gun media.
If people would take the time to do their homework,
research the statistics, research the cultural differences,
and the whole gun debate in general, they would not
draw the same conclusions as the anti-gun media.
1) Most don't even know the real intention the founders
had with the 2nd amendment. They don't understand
their own constitutional right.
2) Most incorrectly assume that banning guns or passing
more guns laws will suddenly cause the gun wielding criminals
to magically START obeying the lawThis one cracks me
up the most.
3) Most don't realize that making guns illegal for citizens
would only increase gun deaths by eliminating the 2.5 million
uses of guns each year in self defense
4) Most are completely unaware of the statistics surrounding
gun control laws and their real effect
5) Most have fallen for the twisted and fallacious arguments
coming out of organizations like Hand Gun Control, Inc.
For example, they count suicides in gun statistics.
In general, most simply have not done their homework.
Here is a speech everyone who is anti-gun needs to read.
http://www.nraila.org/Speeches.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=13
Firearm ownership is an individual right guaranteed by
the constitution, and although many people have attempted
to twist what the 2nd amendment clearly states, you don't
have to do very much homework at all to find supporting
documents that the founders wrote, to discover their true intentions.
This is an emotional issue for a lot of people, and no matter
how many stats or logical arguments you throw at them,
they will disagree with you.
I have generally found it to be true, that if your anti-gun,
and also a rational person, you are simply ignorant, and
will eventually change your mind if you take the time to
discover the facts.
And for the record...no, I don't think everyone should be allowed
to own a firearm. (Mental illness, criminals, lack of firearm education, etc...)
peace
axeman
My lad, it's time for a little quiz:
1) Do you have the right to carry a firearm in church?
2) do you have the right to walk down the street with a gun strapped to your hip?
3) do you have the right to mount a 50 caliber machine gun on your jeep?
4) do you have the right to posses a hand gun in NYC?
5) do you have a right to carry a concealed weapon, if your State disallows it?
The answer to all of the above is: NO.
How can that be? Easy. You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms - your right, such as it may be, is granted and controlled by your state. And should you travel to my state, you MUST abide by our laws. Plain and simple. Easy to understand.
If you had a Federal Constitutional right, then the answers would all be yes.
Don't believe me? Try taking your gun on your next trip to New York, and when they bust your ass, try telling the judge about your "rights, and see what he has to say. And when they throw your ass in jail, ask the NRA to challenge the law - they won't even return your call. Know why? Because they have lied to you, and you never bothered to ask yourself these questions.
The Second Amendment applies to the States - not to you. Your State can do as it pleases when it comes to guns and gun ownership, All the Feds can do is prohibit the sale or manufacturing of certain weapons - but your state can prohibit the actual possession.
And that's a fact, jack.
"If you had a Federal Constitutional right, then the answers would all be yes."
Wrong.
This pretty much sums up your faulty argument.
Using your logic, freedom of speech is also unconstitutional
simply because I cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre.
But to answer your questions, just for fun:
1) Do you have the right to carry a firearm in church?
Yes - in Minnesota
2) do you have the right to walk down the street with a gun strapped to your hip?
Yes in North Carolina.
3) do you have the right to mount a 50 caliber machine gun on your jeep?
Yes - if im in the military.
4) do you have the right to posses a hand gun in NYC?
Yes if im a police officer.
5) do you have a right to carry a concealed weapon, if your State disallows it?
Yes if im a bank guard.
" You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms "
The constitution states otherwise.
This is quite an assertion. Care to state your source?
I was unaware of the removal of the 2nd amendment.
"The Second Amendment applies to the States - not to you"
Another empty assertion. Prove it. I'm not aware of any
anti-gun nut who has successfully made this case.
peace
axeman
Wrong.
This pretty much sums up your faulty argument.
Using your logic, freedom of speech is also unconstitutional
simply because I cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre.
But to answer your questions, just for fun:
1) Do you have the right to carry a firearm in church?
Yes - in Minnesota
2) do you have the right to walk down the street with a gun strapped to your hip?
Yes in North Carolina.
3) do you have the right to mount a 50 caliber machine gun on your jeep?
Yes - if im in the military.
4) do you have the right to posses a hand gun in NYC?
Yes if im a police officer.
5) do you have a right to carry a concealed weapon, if your State disallows it?
Yes if im a bank guard.
" You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms "
The constitution states otherwise.
This is quite an assertion. Care to state your source?
I was unaware of the removal of the 2nd amendment.
"The Second Amendment applies to the States - not to you"
Another empty assertion. Prove it. I'm not aware of any
anti-gun nut who has successfully made this case.
peace
axeman
Axie, baby - there sure were a lot of "if I'm in such and such a state" answers in your reply.
Ain't it a bitch when someone backs you into a corner, and the best you can do is a lame tap dance?
Like I said, take your gun to NYC, or Washington DC, or even try driving through Virginia without it being disassembled, and when they bring you before the judge, try some of the above arguments on him - let us know how you make out.
"Ain't it a bitch when someone backs you into a corner, and the best you can do is a lame tap dance?"
Tampax baby...
Only in your own little mind.
I'll point out the flaw in your argument one more time,
using your own language so you will understand it.
Tampax.... Like I said, take your free speech to NYC, or Washington DC, or even in Virginia, then yell FIRE in a
crowded theatre, and when they bring you before the judge,
try some of the above arguments on him - let us know how you make out.
You see LAD... reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights
is not proof that they don't exist.
PS. Nice DODGE. You failed to backup your empty assertions.
tampax:" You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms "
tampax:"The Second Amendment applies to the States - not to you""
peace
axeman
Tampax baby...
Only in your own little mind.
I'll point out the flaw in your argument one more time,
using your own language so you will understand it.
Tampax.... Like I said, take your free speech to NYC, or Washington DC, or even in Virginia, then yell FIRE in a
crowded theatre, and when they bring you before the judge,
try some of the above arguments on him - let us know how you make out.
You see LAD... reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights
is not proof that they don't exist.
PS. Nice DODGE. You failed to backup your empty assertions.
tampax:" You do not have a Federal Constitutional right to keep and bare arms "
tampax:"The Second Amendment applies to the States - not to you""
peace
axeman
Axie, surely you would join with me in declaring that the prohibition against the ownership of firearms, as exists in numerous municipalities, goes well beyond reasonable restrictions. Such "restrictions" would fly in the face of the Second Amendment - if that amendment applied directly to individuals. And is it not strange that the NRA, champion of the Second Amendment has not brought what might otherwise be a blatant violation of Constitutional rights to the attention of the Attorney General or the Supreme Court? Why do you suppose they have not?
( Give me that old soft shoe, and nothing else will do. A one, a two, doo da ly doo...)
Drop the rhetoric.
The degree of restrictions on firearms is constantly debated,
as is the degree of reasonable searches in the fourth amendment.
Is the fourth amendment invalid because the DEGREE of
reasonable search is always under debate? NO.
The bill of rights in 44 of 50 state constitutions secure an
individual right to bear arms, many of them explicitly.
Se we know this has been hashed out in court already, and
although for some reason, it has not reached the Supreme Court,
the majority of state courts recognize this as an individual right.
I *suspect* the powers that be are making very sure this
doesn't reach the supreme court, but I doubt anyone can prove this.
The evidence for the 2nd amendment being an individual right
is quite strong, and i'm sure the NRA would love to see the
day this reaches the Supreme Court.
As for your Attorney General, he SUPPORTS the 2nd amendment
as an individual right. You better check out:
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/halbrookresp.htm
Now do you wish to retract the assertions you have
failed to back up, or are you going to DODGE again?
peace
axeman
The degree of restrictions on firearms is constantly debated,
as is the degree of reasonable searches in the fourth amendment.
Is the fourth amendment invalid because the DEGREE of
reasonable search is always under debate? NO.
The bill of rights in 44 of 50 state constitutions secure an
individual right to bear arms, many of them explicitly.
Se we know this has been hashed out in court already, and
although for some reason, it has not reached the Supreme Court,
the majority of state courts recognize this as an individual right.
I *suspect* the powers that be are making very sure this
doesn't reach the supreme court, but I doubt anyone can prove this.
The evidence for the 2nd amendment being an individual right
is quite strong, and i'm sure the NRA would love to see the
day this reaches the Supreme Court.
As for your Attorney General, he SUPPORTS the 2nd amendment
as an individual right. You better check out:
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/halbrookresp.htm
Now do you wish to retract the assertions you have
failed to back up, or are you going to DODGE again?
peace
axeman
Did you say that 44 of the 50 States have strong gun ownership provisions in their Constitutions? Why do you suppose that is? It's because the US Constitution permits them to - in fact it permits them to have strong, or even weak gun ownership provisions. The US Constitution leaves such matters as individual gun ownership and related issues up to the States.
That's why you can strap a gun to your hip, and walk down the street in a south western state - but risk being shot were you to try it in most others. That's why you can carry a concealed gun in one state, but not another. That's why you can drive down the highway with a gun in your car, but are not permitted to have one in your home in certain cities, and the District of Columbia.
As for the NRA "loving" to see the issue reach the Supreme Court - they can file suit this morning. In fact, they could have done so yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that.
And yes, the Attorney General is quite vocal in his support for the Second Amendment - and who better than he to ask the Court for relief for the poor citizens of NYC, or to keep you from having to deal with the restrictions placed on you by your own or other states. He hasn't done so because he knows full well that the Court would side with, for example, the State of New York in granting the city of New York the authority to decide who shall and shall not be armed. (As does the NRA)
With all due respect, and at the risk of this sounding like a personal attack, you are too thick headed, and apparently too stupid to have a gun - at least in my humble opinion.