kallend 2,108
steve1 5
QuoteQuoteOf course, in Webster's day the government forces weren't armed with smart bombs and Apache gunships, but had basically the same arms that the civilians had. IF the government/military decided to turn on the people (a very unlikely scenario IMHO) the conflict would be rather one sided these days.
Silly, silly Kallend. You just don't get it, do you? This imbalance between the military and civilian citizens is why we need to allow private individuals to own grenades, Stinger missiles, mines and a wide array of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. After all, it is our constitutional right to bear arms.
Please, God, grasp the sarcasm, everyone.
..........................................................
I just wonder who's side you and Kallen would be on if the government did become corrupt. I'm sorry your humor fails to amuse anyone with common sense. Steve1
steve1 5
Well, it's funny that the Vietnam vets I know claim almost to a man that the reason the VC prevailed was that the US military was fighting with one hand tied behind its back, figuratively speaking, thanks to political ineptitude.
...........................................................
Sure that was a factor. But there was a lot more to it than that. Ask any Vet if it was easy to identify who the VC were. They outsmarted the US much of the time and were often a deadly threat. If you're saying they weren't a formidable foe you're dreaming. Sure we probably could have won in Vietnam, but at what cost? My point is that much of the weaponry that the US now has couldn't be used on a guerrilla force that was main streamed in with the general population. Steve1
kallend 2,108
QuoteQuoteQuoteOf course, in Webster's day the government forces weren't armed with smart bombs and Apache gunships, but had basically the same arms that the civilians had. IF the government/military decided to turn on the people (a very unlikely scenario IMHO) the conflict would be rather one sided these days.
Silly, silly Kallend. You just don't get it, do you? This imbalance between the military and civilian citizens is why we need to allow private individuals to own grenades, Stinger missiles, mines and a wide array of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. After all, it is our constitutional right to bear arms.
Please, God, grasp the sarcasm, everyone.
..........................................................
I just wonder who's side you and Kallen would be on if the government did become corrupt. I'm sorry your humor fails to amuse anyone with common sense. Steve1
Whaddya mean "if". It's already been sold lock stock and barrel to special interests.
steve1 5
Whaddya mean "if". It's already been sold lock stock and barrel to special interests.
..........................................................
I mean if your are willing to give our rights away, I doubt if us good guys would want you.............. but you have a right to your opinion. After all this is America. Talk to you tomorrow, I've got to go. Steve1
flypunk 0
it could've been divided into 2 groups, those who opposed it in the first place, so they opted for a change of barrel, and the others considered themselves cautious, it was a place where you are presumed guilty untill proven inocent, it avoided hassle.
...
...
kallend 2,108
Quote
Whaddya mean "if". It's already been sold lock stock and barrel to special
interests.
..........................................................
I mean if your are willing to give our rights away, I doubt if us good guys would
want you.............. but you have a right to your opinion. After all this is
America. Talk to you tomorrow, I've got to go. Steve1
The papers were reporting today that the average Senate candidate is spending $5M on the election campaign. This for a 6 year job that pays $150,000/yr. Give away? I think your rights have already been sold.
kallend 2,108
Quoteit could've been divided into 2 groups, those who opposed it in the first place, so they opted for a change of barrel, and the others considered themselves cautious, it was a place where you are presumed guilty untill proven inocent, it avoided hassle.
Same logic could apply to cars, but "most" law abiding citizens do not use false license plates.
jfields 0
QuoteWhaddya mean "if". It's already been sold lock stock and barrel to special interests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean if your are willing to give our rights away, I doubt if us good guys would want you.............. but you have a right to your opinion. After all this is America.
Steve,
We aren't giving our rights away. They are being bought by unscrupulous special interest groups. And as I assume you are a card-carrying member of the NRA, you are one of the people writing the check. I would love to see the budget of the NRA. I'd specifically like to compare the marketing and lobbying portion against the educational and safety programs that are touted as being the main purpose of the organization.
Other groups try to do the same things. Pharmaceutical companies, airlines, AARP, whatever. But lets just be straightforward about it and admit that the groups (including the NRA) are trying (successfully) to buy politicians. That is how our freedom is getting pissed away. That is one reason I generally hate politicians, but that is another topic altogether.
Floater 0
just to clear up a little misconception that seems to be going on.
the constitution itself is not a granting article. it does not give you any rights. it is a limiting article. it tells the government what it cannot do. that's why the phrase "shall not infringe" is so prominent.
Lee
the constitution itself is not a granting article. it does not give you any rights. it is a limiting article. it tells the government what it cannot do. that's why the phrase "shall not infringe" is so prominent.
Lee
I have rebarreled at least three of my guns in the last year. Barrels wear out. The ballistic fingerprint is worthless as soon as the old barrel hits the trash. I also have a few barreled upper receivers for my ARs. At any given time I can pop two pins, and put my match upper on and go shoot a match. I might change my mind when i get to the match and install the DCM upper. Neither of these came with the rifle. They are not serial numbered. They are not FFL items. They have nothing to do with the original firearm they could go on in 20 seconds.
I was at the NRA National Matches at Camp Perry, OH, a few years back and one of the vendors had a whole box full of 1911 barrels in .45ACP. If you aren't worried about accuracy, I could fit a new used barrel in your 1911 in about 2 minutes. If you want it to work though, you might want to let me have it for a few weeks.
Ballistic fingerprinting does not work! Deal with it. Its a buzzword and being used to create warm and fuzzies among the anti crowd, hoping to spread to middle America. Let Congress study it and prove to all it doesn't work. Then the antis can go after the dreaded "sniper rifle" which will encompass every sub moa rifle in the world (that includes about half the hunting guns out there).
peace
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
I was at the NRA National Matches at Camp Perry, OH, a few years back and one of the vendors had a whole box full of 1911 barrels in .45ACP. If you aren't worried about accuracy, I could fit a new used barrel in your 1911 in about 2 minutes. If you want it to work though, you might want to let me have it for a few weeks.
Ballistic fingerprinting does not work! Deal with it. Its a buzzword and being used to create warm and fuzzies among the anti crowd, hoping to spread to middle America. Let Congress study it and prove to all it doesn't work. Then the antis can go after the dreaded "sniper rifle" which will encompass every sub moa rifle in the world (that includes about half the hunting guns out there).
peace
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
steve1 5
Jfields,
No, I'm not a card carrying member of the NRA. I've let my membership lapse. But I plan to sign up again. No, I don't agree with everything they stand for, but for the most part I do.
Yes, they do have a lot of money in their budget, because there are a lot of gun owners who don't want their rights taken away any.
Special interest groups with money do have power in America. Maybe this is a sad state of affairs, but that is how the game is played in Washington.
The main thing I like about the NRA is that they want to limit the power of the government and make sure our constitution isn't twisted into something it wasn't meant to be. Such as taking away our second amendment rights.
I think you and Kallend should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". It was a classic example of what can happen if a government becomes to powerful. Steve1
No, I'm not a card carrying member of the NRA. I've let my membership lapse. But I plan to sign up again. No, I don't agree with everything they stand for, but for the most part I do.
Yes, they do have a lot of money in their budget, because there are a lot of gun owners who don't want their rights taken away any.
Special interest groups with money do have power in America. Maybe this is a sad state of affairs, but that is how the game is played in Washington.
The main thing I like about the NRA is that they want to limit the power of the government and make sure our constitution isn't twisted into something it wasn't meant to be. Such as taking away our second amendment rights.
I think you and Kallend should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". It was a classic example of what can happen if a government becomes to powerful. Steve1
jfields 0
QuoteYes, they do have a lot of money in their budget, because there are a lot of gun owners who don't want their rights taken away any.
Just as all the gun control folks are concerned with their rights as well, which is why they are fighting the other side. Just depends on which rights you value. I value my families right to life more highly than I value somebody else's right to be careless with firearms and hurt my family. Note that I said careless, which doesn't apply to everyone.
QuoteI think you and Kallend should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". It was a classic example of what can happen if a government becomes to powerful.
I've read it. I agree with the fact that it teaches a lesson. On the other side of the gun control debate, I'd give you some reading as well. It would be the gravestones of people that have been killed due to firearm accidents by stolen weapons. Be especially careful to do the math and find all the children.
QuoteIt would be the gravestones of people that have been killed due to firearm accidents by stolen weapons. Be especially careful to do the math and find all the children.
Huh? generally stolen firearms aren't involved in accidental shootings. They are used in the commission of a crime, generally. As for statistics, I would like to reiterate that twice as many children under 10 die from drowning in 5 gallon buckets than are accidentally killed from a gunshot--CDC figures.
If you really want to read more about the gun debate and Amendment II, I suggest:
More Guns, Less Crime By Prof. John Lott
Gun Control -- a written record of efforts to eliminate the private possession of firearms in America by Robert J. Kukla
Gun Control and the Constitution -- Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment edited by Robert Cottrol
The Great American Gun Debate by Don B. Kates, Jr. and Prof. Gary Kleck.
Origins and Development of the Second Amendment by David T. Hardy
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
jfields 0
Mike,
Your right. The stolen guns used in accidents was a cut-n-paste error. I meant people killed by stolen guns (omitting accidentally).
But please give the guns-buckets-bathtubs analogies a rest. They really don't prove anything, but they make you look incredibly silly.
Your right. The stolen guns used in accidents was a cut-n-paste error. I meant people killed by stolen guns (omitting accidentally).
But please give the guns-buckets-bathtubs analogies a rest. They really don't prove anything, but they make you look incredibly silly.
..........................................................
This kind of reminds me of Lyndon Johnson talking back in the 70's. He didn't think much of the Viet Cong either. After all they were a primitive backward people who were often poorly supplied. Yet they later went on to kick a Super Powers ass. Mainly because they were more dedicated than we were, and it was often impossible to tell where the enemy was. A well armed guerrilla force could still be a threat. Take away enough basic rights from a group of people you'd better watch out. What are you going to do drop a smart bomb on your own people to kill a few of the enemy who might have been there? I traveled through Mexico some last winter. Guns are forbidden there. How do you think they control the starving masses. They make sure they can't fight back. They take away all their weapons and then they can put the screws to them, and they can't fight back. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that our government could do the same thing. Steve1
Well, it's funny that the Vietnam vets I know claim almost to a man that the reason the VC prevailed was that the US military was fighting with one hand tied behind its back, figuratively speaking, thanks to political ineptitude.