BlackBerry Forums Support Community

test54 · 02-27-2009, 06:11 PM

Nazi's were not Communist dawg. They actually hated Communists & Communism with a passion, and Hitler came to power partially on the fear of Communism spreading into Germany.
Do you call yourself a Southerner? People can refer to themselves however they want you do not have the right or the authority to enforce your will upon them.

But back on topic - Assault rifles both auto & semi-auto are to be banned. I agree with it, its my opinion. Thanks.

monkeypaw · 02-27-2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54

... the 2nd amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and it can be interpreted in many ways.
...

Here's the problem. The intent of the First Amendment wasn't to allow porn, the intent was to allow open opposition to the government and freedom of religion. But the intent is not what is enforced, it is the law itself. So you get porn being protected speech, which clearly wasn't the intent of the law.

So interpret the intent of the 2nd Amendment any way you want, it doesn't matter. The law says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

test54 · 02-27-2009, 06:46 PM

Ok, the first amendment protects free speech as long as it doesn't not put lives in danger, kind of like the yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is an interpretation of the amendment.
The ban on assault weapons is just that, an interpretation. To them it is a safety issue and they see fit to reimpose that ban that was in effect prior to 2004.
All of this is not unexpected, these are democrat things. Not sure where the outrage and surprise comes from.

Also, Dawg - Hitler didn't even ban weapons, he forced registration. He only banned weapons for Jews and for all the countries that the Germans defeated.

LunkHead · 02-27-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeypaw

The law says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

BINGO

Dawg · 02-27-2009, 08:40 PM

And Guns do not put lives in danger no more than cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, motorcycles, and anything else. If you are going to ban guns you need to ban forks, knives, scissors, cell phones, rocks. Just about everything on the planet because they can all cause injurys or death.

Again Guns do not kill people by them selves. I cant believe you want to give away your freedoms test.

test54 · 02-28-2009, 12:58 AM

They do have road-legal cars & strict regulations on what planes & trains can operate safely in the US. I think its giving away freedom if you ban guns altogether, last time I checked no one has tied Obama & Holder to that proposal. Just my opinion, doesn't make me a Socialist which I think is what you were trying to call me earlier.

Dawg · 02-28-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54

They do have road-legal cars & strict regulations on what planes & trains can operate safely in the US. I think its giving away freedom if you ban guns altogether, last time I checked no one has tied Obama & Holder to that proposal. Just my opinion, doesn't make me a Socialist which I think is what you were trying to call me earlier.

and all these weapons they are banning are completely safe as well. Doesnt matter what they are regulated atthey still kill people daily so lets ban them as well. Come on test jump on the band wagon to ban every thing that can kill people.

turn_key · 03-04-2009, 09:59 PM

Banning or letting the ban of assault rifles expire has had no effect on crime or the murder rate either way. Secondly, the majority of firearm related murders are committed by handguns and other readily available weapons such as shotguns or hunting rifles.

Banning guns will not stop criminals from getting them, just take a look at Chicago; we have strict handgun laws and people get shot everyday, literally. If there is anything I've learned in life, is laws don't stop people from doing anything.

The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case and the 2nd Amendment is still the law of the land. Banning guns only takes away the rights of law abiding citizens.

Dawg · 03-05-2009, 10:28 AM

Laws are in place to keep honest people in check. If laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty.

test54 · 03-05-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg

Laws are in place to keep honest people in check. If laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty.

ridiculous argument. so because a small % of the country cannot follow the laws then they do not work? So because a small % of the population commits gun violence then gun laws don't work? Just how far do you want to take that argument...

Dawg · 03-05-2009, 11:13 AM

No I do not think gun laws work. People are going to commit crimes with guns wether they are banned or not. Do the locks on your home keep criminals out? No if they want in they are getting in. Ill take this argument as far as you want it to go.

I can show you statistics from the city I live in where you are required to own a gun and the crime rate is the lowest in the state.

test54 · 03-05-2009, 11:51 AM

So do you lock your house? You live in a city where you are required to own a gun?
Why are there laws or rules then if some people break them? Are you turning into a anarchist?

I think this has turned into a battle for guns in general when the discussion mentioned was about automatic & semi-auto assault rifles.

turn_key · 03-05-2009, 12:20 PM

Gun laws don't work well enough to stop all criminals who want guns, just like no other law stops people from committing any other type of crime, and it's not my golf clubs sitting in my garage at risk, it's my life and the lives of my family.

When death or great bodily harm is the risk, set aside the arguments about the effectiveness of gun laws, the law stops me from carrying a firearm to protect myself and my family. Laws aren't a deterrent when you have nothing to lose.

I am all for gun laws and control, but an outright ban only takes guns away from those who would use them in a legal manner. Regulation would be a better option and strict enforcement of gun laws already in place. There is a bill going through Illinois now for a concealed carry permit. From what I've read there would be a fee, a training course and yearly re-qualifications possible. At least this would give me the right to protect my family by the very means it's threatened.

Dawg · 03-05-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54

So do you lock your house? You live in a city where you are required to own a gun?
Why are there laws or rules then if some people break them? Are you turning into a anarchist?

I think this has turned into a battle for guns in general when the discussion mentioned was about automatic & semi-auto assault rifles.

No actually I don't lock my house or my vehicles and the in 41 years I have lived here I have never had anything stolen. I drive a soft top jeep and I have no problem leaving the top off anywhere I go in Kennesaw, with my cd case sitting on the front seat. Because criminals know they will get shot here.

Just a few months ago a young lady was taken hostage in a car jacking he got into a wreck at an intersection a good citizen took out his personal 40 and put the criminal out of our misery. He was not charged and given an award at the city council meeting for being a hero.

Thank you gun owner.

test54 · 03-05-2009, 11:12 PM

Kennesaw (population 21,675) - 2006
Murders: 0
Rapes: 0
Robbery: 7
Assaults: 27
Burglary: 91
Theft: 398
Auto Theft: 56
Arson: 0

I think a town of 21k is far too small to say that this method of arming citizens is the way to go. I think if there was zero crime then maybe. - thats my opinion.

But again, this is not about getting rid of guns, its all about assault weapons. There is no discussion of banning guns....

dmead · 03-06-2009, 12:57 AM

assault weapons are unnecessary under the current state of this country. If you, like me like to hunt, then own a rifle. i don't know anyone that goes hunting with an assault rifle. if protecting your family is what you want then buy a handgun.

if showing off to all your buddies is your aim then get a ****ing assault rifle. but don't ask anyone for help when you or your buddy gets killed by said assault rifle.

again, my take is that assault rifles serve no purpose in the general population.

Dawg · 03-06-2009, 09:08 AM

If they can ban these guns the rest will follow ever heard of give an inch? Look at the cities in this country where you cant own them. Like Obamas home town of Chicago.

So if you want to give away your rights go ahead i will not give up mine. I will fight to the death.

And the poulation of the city isnt relative. You looked at wikipiedia those stats are 9 years old. Its a major city in the metro area, we have the second largest airport in the state. The largest mall in the state. We are less than 20 minutes from the City of Atlanta. So do not go on population alone.

test54 · 03-06-2009, 09:18 AM

those are 2006 stats, not sure where the 9 years comes from. Sounds like a paranoia about give and inch, the assault weapons ban was in effect before and not one took your guns. I'm with dmead, I don't see any reason for having assault weapons. But dawg I see where in your town it works or appears to work so its more of a sensitive issue I so understand but thats not the case in most of the country it does not, mandatory arming of the citizens would be an issue.

Dawg · 03-06-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by test54

those are 2006 stats, not sure where the 9 years comes from. Sounds like a paranoia about give and inch, the assault weapons ban was in effect before and not one took your guns. I'm with dmead, I don't see any reason for having assault weapons. But dawg I see where in your town it works or appears to work so its more of a sensitive issue I so understand but thats not the case in most of the country it does not, mandatory arming of the citizens would be an issue.

Yes, I am paranoid about our Goverment taking away my rights as a citizen. Think about what we have already lost over the years. No knock warrants illegal search and siezure. The Police are alreadya para military organization we will become more and more of a police state. Why because the criminals are getting more violent. Are these laws going to stop that no they are not.

I disagree I think if more people were armed then the criminals would reconsider half their actions. Sure I am not niave to think there wouldnt be shootings that shouldnt happen but that happens now. If you take away these weapons from citizens all you are doing is allowing the crooks to get better armed because they wont care about the ban. And you make people like me a criminal, because I am going to own these types of weapons no matter what is outlawed.

I own 4 aks, 2 ar15s, and several other military grade weapons. See I am a collector and I love military type weapons. My uncle owns over 60 of these types of weapons. So I guess i will be a criminal soon.

LunkHead · 03-06-2009, 10:46 AM

Not to get to far off topic here but No Knock Warrnats are for the protection of the police... It generally takes a ton of information to get a no knock apprvoved by a judge...

No knocks are reserved for the very violent offenders who, if given the chance of a 30-second knock and announce, will run for, get gun, and fire on police before they even have the chance to execute the valid search warrant...

Kris

BlackBerry Forums Support Community

Obama and Holder trample the 2nd Amendment