Ron

No you clearly did not. I asked what would have happened if a passenger on flight 11 had a pistol that day. You instead answered with, "Give me a break. We still allow far more effective weapons on planes than box cutters. If someone needs a gun to defend themselves from such a barely lethal weapon as a box cutter, I wouldn't count on them as a reliable source of help with a gun, either. " So, no... you didn't answer a single thing. Of course! Quit trying to use emotional arguments. We are discussing the right to keep arms for self defense, not the right to keep arms to wage a war against anything. They have also said in Miller that military type weapons are protected.... They also said in Heller that pistols are protected. They also said in Heller, "What is reasonable about a Ban"--- Roberts. Yet, you still approve of bans when you want. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

No more like uninformed fear. I'll ask again : So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The ones that type here using your screen name. It is not a stereotype if it is 100% true. And you still dodge the questions.... I think it is simply because it will show the glaring error in your argument. So I will ask again: Bill, would you be OK with an entire City or State removing your rights to discuss a single topic? Removing your right to face your accuser? Removing your right to trial by jury? Removing your right against illegal search and seizure? Removing your protection against cruel and unusual punishment? An entire City or State, not one area. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Who is penis waving now? And you think no one else is trained? You take your belt, I'll carry the gun when my life is on the line. Improvised weapons are better than nothing, but a gun is normally better than an improvised weapon. Pick the best weapon for the job. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I am saying that there can be individual places such as an airport or courthouse where additional precautions *could* be taken. Personally, I think if you are a citizen without a record, you should be allowed to carry wherever you want.... To include aircraft. But I also think that a property owner can say no and if you want to be there, you have to follow the rules they lay out. So instead of answering the question, you dodge it? Then if guns are not a good option, why do FAM's carry them? Why do cops? Why does the SS carry them to protect Obama? Give ME a break. I totally get it... you can't back your position with anything more than your position. You somehow think your personal position should trump the Constitution. "Shall not be infringed" is not that difficult to understand. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And there are laws against shooting people. So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Tell that to Israel. Like it or not, while they work best when not used, IMO. Having a big stick prevents a good number of problems. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

But then you must assume that the pro gun end is a lower income redneck then? I know plenty of pro gun folks that do not live in a trailer. THAT is my point exactly. They painted a picture that the extreme end of "Pro-Gun" is like Jedd Clampett. You believe that, so you see no issue. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

True, and I am more about limiting dangerous ACTIONS not items. Would you be OK with a city outlawing hamburgers? In a limited situation such as an airport or a courthouse some level of reduction in rights could be allowed. But, imagine if a person on flight 11 had a pistol that day. So, an argument could be made that no place should have limits.... Again, I am more about limiting and punishing ACTIONS, not items. Then why bother posting an opinion? Why bother voting? No my argument is based on me being able to provide cite after cite to back my position and you not being able to produce ONE to support yours. Only those powers NOT delegated by the Constitution to the United States. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the statesare reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " So anything NOT covered by the Constitution is given to the States. The 2nd IS covered by the Constitution. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I suspect that, of the possible hosts with suitable accommodations to take on a house guest for 30 days in a reasonably comfortable manner, he was chosen as a far extreme so that the difference would be greater. They did it for ratings. They picked both people for their extreme views. Manufactured home. I have seen them with basements before. The point is that there were several shots of him sitting in his living room with a wall behind him that was missing sheetrock. They make those kinds of shots to show how "redneck" they guy was. And then all the shots of his kid practically drooling over the firearms. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

But the fact they DID should say plenty. And they said plenty of times that the individual should have the right to keep and bear arms.... Yet guys like you don't agree. And yet guys like you can't find ONE quote to back your position. But would you be OK with an entire city not allowing you to discuss climate change? Would you allow a ban on certain topics State wide? How about a ban that stated you could not discuss climate change in the US at all? How would you feel about an entire City saying that if you come into the City you can be searched for no reason? What if California said that you could be stopped and searched at anytime you are in the State.... You OK with that? And how about once arrested... Would you allow an entire State to say you have no right to face your accuser? You clearly didn't, or more likely you made the choice to ignore it and go in another direction. So I will ask again: Bill, would you be OK with an entire City or State removing your rights to discuss a single topic? Removing your right to face your accuser? Removing your right to trial by jury? Removing your right against illegal search and seizure? Removing your protection against cruel and unusual punishment? An entire City or State, not one area. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You are free to do it, you just can be held liable if your actions cause a problem.... And it is not even illegal if there really is a fire! So you could carry an M16 all day. As long as you don't break the law and shoot it ant anyone without reason. And I would empty my holster when I empty my pockets... your argument is weak. So I guess you think that is 100 OK? Ah, nice try, but "seems like" is not gonna win anything. No, the 10th says that the States have any right not directly given to the Federal.... Again, nice try. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

No, not really. If you look at Jeffersons quote he said "free". Nice try. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You didn't even notice that his living conditions were run down? That they painted him as more about his guns than his home? I am not saying *he* didn't DO a fine job, I said I hate how the *producers* picked a person "living in an unfinished trailer in the middle of nowhere." THEY tried to paint any pro second guy as some redneck. I know it is their job to make the two seem as different as possible, but the show made it look like anti gun folks are hip, socially consensus individuals and that pro 2nd folks live in trailers. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Saw it years ago. I hate how they picked about as redneck a family as you can get, living in an unfinished trailer in the middle of nowhere. I do give her tons of respect, she faced something she didn't like and actually tried it and allowed herself to learn a bit. This is not something most people are able to do. I will admit that every anti gun person that has ever gone to the range with me has had that same change of opinion once they actually learn something about firearms. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Did it occur to you that "Militia" meant something different back then? Do you have any proof Jefferson meant something different? Or are you just grasping at straws? Not at all. I think they are entitled the same rights and that has been proven over and over. See, to take away a right requires more work than granting IMO. You are free to argue that they are not allowed, but that is not a position I have taken. You are free to take the position if you like. *I* will abide by common decency and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. You are free to try and push your agenda on your own. Oh it can be debated... But the only evidence YOU have been able to provide is personal opinion and not ONE shred of real data to support your position. So tell me, other than YOUR personal history and interpretation, can you find ONE quote from a Founding Father that says the individual should NOT be allowed? Or are you just taking your personal opinion and trying to make the law read like YOU want without one shred of data to back your opinion? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Maybe then you should admit that you are UNABLE to do that instead of playing stupid games? Nope, so once they get out of jail and are off probation, let them have them. See I am willing to admit when I can't back my position... Are you? So would you be fine with local cities/States removing the right to free speech? How about a local city/State removing protection from illegal Search and Seizure? How about a local city/State removing the right of due process? How about a local city/State removing the right to face your accuser? How about a local city/State allowing Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Are you OK with each of those as well? If not then why only on the 2nd? 'Cause Amendment 10 kinda says that the Constitution trumps States. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And they have stated: 1. That there is nothing reasonable about a ban. 2. That the militia is any able bodied person willing to take up arms. 3. That those people should muster with their own weapons that are "in common use at the time". So do you, or do you not: 1. Agree that bans are unconstitutional 2. Think that a lawful citizen should be allowed weapons that can be used for self defense? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Heller simply said that some cases such as prisons and courts could be banned. Hughes bans a TYPE of firearm and the SC has already ruled on that in Miller. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Try reading the SC in Miller... you will find it helps understand what the 2nd actually said. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Oh, so you would support repealing the Hughes Amendment? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sure... No FREE man...... Look at my quote. Since rape is illegal he would not be a free man now would he? Can you show ONE quote where they do not want individuals to have the right? Again: Do you or do you not think a legal citizen in good standing should be allowed to buy a new full auto M-16? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You think the Founding Fathers would agree to taking away what they considered to be a basic RIGHT?!?!?!?!? No historical data would back that opinion. Can you fine ONE quote where the Founding Fathers are against individual ownership of firearms? ONE!?!?!?!? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Why would YOU support taking that right from everyone? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The FF's DO have a say in the fact that they wrote the Constitution... YOU may want to throw it out, but it is the basis for this Country's freedoms YOU seem to enjoy. And the SC has stated that the militia is any bodied male willing to take up arms. The SC has said that those men should be equipped with what is in common military use at the time. The SC has said that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. Yet YOU support bans which have been ruled Unconstitutional. Sorry for YOU. Maybe YOU can show ONE quote from a Founding Father to support a ban? Cause the SC was not able to do it. Most people when they find they are unable to support their position with facts.... Admit their position is not valid. YOU seem not able to do that and hold to your belief without a shred of data. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334