TypicalFish

Without a doubt, the same way that some people are unequivocally trying to ban same sex marriages with a constitutional amendment. It doesn't mean they can do it. The way you and others sound from these posts, it's almost as if you do not trust the pro-gun lobby to protect your interests. I never said they weren't. I will tell you, it is my own personal opinion that there should be more involved in legally obtaining a firearm than there is currently. At least to the level of what it takes to get a license to drive a car; maybe some sort of certified training, and you have to pass a test. What could be the harm in that, given that (at least in my opinion, anyways) most gun owners are genuinely responsible? Again, I think the really ironic part of all the hysteria involving "lost gun ownership rights" displayed in this thread is that its original intent had to do with the upcoming LIFTING of restrictions. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Well stated position. Good post (for what my opinion is worth). But, with the lifting of the ban, aren't we moving farther AWAY from what you consider your rights being infringed upon? Don't you have more of an ability to exercise that freedom? You are saying that "will not have another infringement on your rights"; but isn't that restriction being lifted even more as of September 13th? By that argument, the anti-gunners could be using the same "slippery slope" argument as the pro-gun lobby. I can hear it now; "The next thing you know, you'll be able to buy a Stinger missile at the hardware store..." "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Well, I think there are extremists on both sides of ANY issue. Gun control, gay marriage, environmental issues, whatever. That doesn't mean that it is going to happen the way she wants. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

The key word is "some". Most opponents of any type of gun restriction say that it will lead to the banning of ALL guns. Kev, the link didn't work; I would be interested in reading it. And your avatar is STILL killing me. Is that the one from your office? "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I feel like it is important here to define my views; like it is somehow getting lost in the static. First of all, I am a gun owner, and fully support the right of responsible gun ownership, as intended by the framers of our Constitution. (Interestingly enough, when the Bill Of Rights was being formulated, a number of the states proposals worded the second amendment as requiring gun ownership). Additionally, I support the right of responsible gun owners to enjoy their "arms" as a hobby; seeking out esoteric and unique examples (i.e., so-called "assault weapons", .50 cals, etc.) according to their particular taste and interests. These are only my "one vote" attitudes towards gun ownership and the regulation thereof. They are based on my (unfortunate) belief that no matter what you regulate, people will always find a way to kill each other. All of that being said, I do believe there is room for discussion in how those rights are intelligently applied within a peaceful society. If someone says to me "I have good case for banning ALL guns"; I will take the time to listen. If someone has a case for requiring gun ownership as a consequence of citizenship, I will listen to that as well. My frustration is that there is never any real discourse as to the merits (if any) vs. liabilities (if any) related to the regulation of ownership of guns. I know that the first (and sometimes only) argument that people will make is "it's the second amendment, and I have the right to exercise it as I see fit". Tired, hackneyed, and frankly an incomplete statement. You absolutely have that right, provided it does not infringe on the rights of others in their own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. The first amendment provides for free speech, it does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and cause the death of those around you (yes, an actual court case well known to any law professionals on this board). My point being is that there is, in our everyday lives, constant interpretations of the Bill Of Rights, as well as the other amendments; all in the interest of the common good, and after much examination and discussion. The second amendment should be no different. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Really? Ever hear of CAFE? Plus I don't think there's an amendment about the right to drive cars. Do people think CAFE will eventually lead to them being unable to own cars? I am a little confused. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Very true. But, cars are HEAVILY regulated, and people don't scream and yell that any change in that regulation will lead eventually to them not having cars at all. The point that I am trying to make, ad nauseum, is that there sems to be no room for any type of discussion without it becoming a hysterical screaming match and some "threat to the basic principles of our country". "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

As much as I am (genuinely) enjoying this discussion, I have to go to bed. Early day tomorrow. Thanks for the participation/articulation of your perspective. Vibes. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I think you are missing the point of what I am saying: THIS IS THE TYPE OF DISCOURSE I AM TALKING ABOUT. As opposed to "Because the Second Amendment says I can"... "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

THEN EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE SO POPULAR WITH THE ANTI GUN CROWD. HYSTERIA. PARTY LINE. Plain and simple. Quite frankly, I agree with you here, but I think you could say the same thing about the "pro-gun" crowd... That was why I thought your previous post about rationality (on both sides) made such a good point. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I agree with this completely. I think the current standard is misleading and arbitrary. This is a democracy/republic, I think EVERYTHING is open for debate among the involved parties. The only real reason that I would give would be that the need for 1000 PJ's (who are responsible, safety conscious gun owners) to be able to enjoy their (however they are defined) assault weapons for their fun and fascination is outweighed by the one kook who will use the capabilities of that weapon to inflict massive damage on innnocent men, women, and children. It's the same reason you can't go into a hardware store and buy dynamite. Is this enough of a reason? I am not sure, but I would love to hear the open debate instead of the shrill screaming from both sides. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Much Love, FFF... Hang in there; the process sucks but you will find you are stronger than you know... "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

PJ, I have to agree with you here, to think that "gun buybacks" have any kind of effect on gun violence is an exercise in futility... "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Don't you have to kind of leave your dignity at the door? Can you say "E-MAS-CU-LAT-ING"? "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Oh, I believe in the theory of it, I am saying that not ALL things are going to go down that slope. They may reach an equilibrium, in the spirit of your previous post. I guess what I was looking for was a real discussion as to why you need to have an assault weapon; if the case can be made, logically, intelligently, without hysteria, then I am all for it. (My own personal viewpoint is that no matter what you ban, people will always find a way to kill each other). I would for once just like to hear a justification beyond "because a 200 year old document says so"... And you are right, this is America, you don't need to have a reason to do anything, I would just like to hear it. ("You" in this case refers to the population at large; not just Jeffrey) "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Sorry, bf, that's a power you just don't have. I am serious with my question; what are laws if not for the common good? Are you saying we should live in a lawless society? "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Dude, it was a JOKE. LIGHTEN UP.[/I] - I always get thrown off by the "tongue" one. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

No, actually, it just felt kind of good. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Actually, it was the "Go Fuck Yourself" that teed me off. Though it sounds like fun. And if laws are not for the common good, what are they for? Or am I missing something? "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

INTELLECTUALLY INSECURE NARROW MINDED SHITHEAD. (Edit: If the "Go Fuck Yourself" and "Commie" comments were humor that I missed, I take this back and genuinely apologize.) Otherwise: Moderators, go back and look at the attacks I have endured and tried to maintain a polite discourse, and if you think I should be banned, knock yourself out. From the Forum rules: Obvious personal attacks like "go fuck yourself" or "you are immature and ignorant" will generally get you banned immediately and/or get your threads locked. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. Oh, and dont fool yourself. After they come for my guns, they're coming for yours MR Browning and Glock owner. Really? Drunk driving is illegal and they haven't come for my beer. I can't drive 90, but I can still go 65. I can't bang a 16 year old, but I am still fine with a college girl. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument. It's a cop-out. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Exactly my point. At the time of the authoring of the Declaration Of Independence, the thought was that there should not be a standing army. That has changed. The fact that a standing army is now considered universally acceptable is all the more reason that the people should retain the means to oppose it should it run amok. How do you not see that? - Frankly, I think it is a good point. However, I think you would find that most of the people who tout their "2nd amendment rights" haven't even thought of it that way. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

High Times And pedophilia is not a valid example because the act involved in creating it is a crime. - So is doing drugs (for now, at least). My point being that interpretation of what is acceptable within society under the protection of these rights HAS been successfully accomplished. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

I am not going to bother to dignify this with a reply. You asked me to define my position; for what I assumed was a reasonable, intelligent point that you were trying to make. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

This is a VERY powerful point that quite frankly can probably be applied to most arguments of this nature. That is absolutely fucking retarded! Then next week they'd ask for a different kind. You know what? I want new machine guns. New machine were banned in 86. Legal MGs have never been used in a crime except ONCE by a cop. Look it up. Go fuck yourself. You compromise MY WAY for once! Honestly, you lost me. I was referring to the concept of bringing a level of rationality into heated discussions in the interest of resolution rather than hysterics. That being said, I guess I'll go fuck myself. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET