Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

Speedy is afraid of a 5 year old entering his home with an M-16.......

hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha hahahahahahahah.

Just how many 5 year olds have entered homes of unsuspecting citizens with M-16s anyway, which are not available to the general public because they are selective fire? Perhaps you meant AR-15?

Is it more or less than the number of people killed by snake bites last year? How about terrorists?

What is your interpretation of the First amendment... or the fifth? Originally Posted by boardman

You are absolutely clueless. The question is whether or not there should be NO gun control. My scenario was certainly extreme to make a point. You are correct in that an M-16 is not available to the general public. That is gun control!!!

I'll make it very simple for you:

1. Do you believe that there should be age restrictions on having unlimited access to handguns?
2. Do you believe that an individual has the right to ban guns from his/her home?
3. Do you believe that certain weapons such as an M-16 should be banned from the general public?

Usually when I ask such simple questions the gun rights advocates on this board are silent. Iiffy? JD? Your opinion? All I hear is "2nd Amendment rights" which I interpret as "No gun control at all".

Classic rio quotes: "it is what it is."

"Anyone who can read and comprehend basic English."

The last sentence is the most telling of all. Obviously, the boy forgot to read the fucking constitution!

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What I find ironic is that the 3 branches of government were set up in the Constitution in 1787. The Bill or Rights was passed in 1789. Seems like Rioseco wants to selectively disregard parts of the Constitution.

I'll ask you the same questions. If true, how do those events affect YOU as you go through your life? I can go back to the Nixon/Hoover days and find so many violations of our basic freedoms that it would make your head spin. (BTW I voted for Nixon -- twice)

Such crap happens during every administration, Republican or Democrat. Rarely affects 99.9% of the people in the U.S. For most of us, life goes on without interrupt. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Hey speedy, you forgot to mention something - what happened to Nixon? Didn't he wind up resigning from office in disgrace as a result of multiple affronts to our individual liberties and the Constitution? I seem to recall something like that. Fortunately, back then most people didn't just shrug it off (like you expect us to do now) and say, "Oh well, who cares? Watergate is no biggie. None of this affects ME on a personal level (yet)...."




.

You are absolutely clueless. The question is whether or not there should be NO gun control. My scenario was certainly extreme to make a point. You are correct in that an M-16 is not available to the general public. That is gun control!!!

I'll make it very simple for you:

1. Do you believe that there should be age restrictions on having unlimited access to handguns?
2. Do you believe that an individual has the right to ban guns from his/her home?
3. Do you believe that certain weapons such as an M-16 should be banned from the general public?

Usually when I ask such simple questions the gun rights advocates on this board are silent. Iiffy? JD? Your opinion? All I hear is "2nd Amendment rights" which I interpret as "No gun control at all". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I think if a teen gets and uses a gun for nefarious reasons then he should no longer be considered a teen and should be treated like an adult. After all that's how he wants to be seen if he is going to such lengths. If he, or his parent or guardian(provided he is not legally emancipated), then decides "after the fact" that he doesn't want to be treated as an adult, and his parent or guardian is willing, he gives them up to suffer the consequences of his actions.

Of course an individual has a right to ban guns from his home. That's not a second amendment issue.

I actually don't believe automatic weapons such as the M-16 should be banned....and they aren't.

Is it more or less than the number of people killed by snake bites last year? How about terrorists?

? Originally Posted by boardman

Finally you are starting to get it!

I think if a teen gets and uses a gun for nefarious reasons then he should no longer be considered a teen and should be treated like an adult. After all that's how . Originally Posted by boardman

Does that pertain to say drinking and driving? Why have any distinction at all? Should they not be responsible for their actions nefarious or not?

Does that pertain to say drinking and driving? Why have any distinction at all? Should they not be responsible for their actions nefarious or not? Originally Posted by WTF

I don't want to get on another tangent so I will say this. If they are behaving as an adult they should be treated as I stated previously.
Ultimately, it should be the parents responsibility to control their children. We have slowly eroded that responsibility by making excuses and holding society responsible.

I don't want to get on another tangent . Originally Posted by boardman

You do not want to venture into the tenth tangent on this thread

You do not want to venture into the tenth tangent on this thread Originally Posted by WTF

I know right? I'm not sure how a Col. Peters thread devolved into a second amendment thread and was, quite honestly, too lazy to go back and figure it out.

Speedy was just making some stupid comment and I was just having a moment of clarity and didn't want to lose it...

Oh, look, a squirrel...

Now for a real tangent...I didn't realize Speedy was such an old fart, did you?
How can someone that old be afraid of a 5 year old?

Did someone say peters?

...and did someone say tits?

I'll ask you the same questions. If true, how do those events affect YOU as you go through your life? I can go back to the Nixon/Hoover days and find so many violations of our basic freedoms that it would make your head spin. (BTW I voted for Nixon -- twice)

Such crap happens during every administration, Republican or Democrat. Rarely affects 99.9% of the people in the U.S. For most of us, life goes on without interrupt. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Nixon only dreamed of having as much information on the citizenry that Odumbo now has, speedy.

"For now, know that every border you cross, every purchase you make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friend you keep, site you visit and subject line you type is in the hands of the system whose reach is unlimited, but whose safe guards are not ..." Citizenfour.

BTW, speedy, some little peevish lib-retard like you robbed veterans like me of the opportunity to see a memorial erected to honor the memory of the men who sacrificed their lives in WWI.

The Mojave Memorial Cross was erected in 1934 ... by a prospector named John Riley Bembrey, who served as a medic in World War I, and was one of the veterans who established the monument to honor those killed in WWI.

On the night of May 9–10, 2010, the cross was cut down and stolen from its place on Sunrise Rock.

I'll repeat myself once again -- it does not matter one bit how either you or I interpret the 2nd Amendment. The states have been given the power for the most part to enact gun control legislation as they see fit. Some states have few gun control laws. Others are more strict in gun control legislation. At times gun control laws have been challenged and the court system, sometimes all the way up to SCOTUS, have been asked to rule. Sometimes rulings have been in favor of gun rights advocates and sometimes rulings have been in favor of gun control advocates.

You can argue all you want about what YOU think the 2nd Amendment states and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So says speedy who is not satisfied with the status quo and champions more intrusive laws.

Suffice it to say, speedy, your advocacy for greater infringement means YOUR interpretation of the Second Amendment IS different from the way it's been interpreted by the Founding Fathers and for the last two hundred years.

Only for the wars IB thinks are cool! Originally Posted by Old-T

You're a pathetic, drunk little troll, Old-THUMPER.

You are absolutely clueless. The question is whether or not there should be NO gun control. My scenario was certainly extreme to make a point. You are correct in that an M-16 is not available to the general public. That is gun control!!!

I'll make it very simple for you:

1. Do you believe that there should be age restrictions on having unlimited access to handguns?
2. Do you believe that an individual has the right to ban guns from his/her home?
3. Do you believe that certain weapons such as an M-16 should be banned from the general public?

Usually when I ask such simple questions the gun rights advocates on this board are silent. Iiffy? JD? Your opinion? All I hear is "2nd Amendment rights" which I interpret as "No gun control at all". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your questions are a little disingenuous.

1. Do you believe that there should be age restrictions on having unlimited access to handguns?

Why add that word to the discussion? What does it mean to you? Is access the same thing as purchase (it does to a local sheriff in Platte County)? We're talking about a law and have to be precise.

2. Do you believe that an individual has the right to ban guns from his/her home?

This entire question has nothing to do with laws made by the government so is a non-starter to begin with.

3. Do you believe that certain weapons such as an M-16 should be banned from the general public?

Come on! Go big or go home. Most of your ilk will use the rocket launcher or nuclear bomb attack at this point. You want to sound reasonable so you go with the M16, why not the AK47? In any event the devil is in the details again. The AR15 is very much like the M16 but it is NOT the M16. Still many gun grabbers will lump them together because of look and not function. Let me ask you this, do really mean to say "automatic weapons" or "assault weapons" in general? Assuming you mean "automatic weapons" I would say no to an outright ban for a couple or reasons; I do not trust government to create a working law since you always have trouble defining the problem. The other is that government COULD place a tax on automatic weapons making it very difficult to afford them (but not impossible) and place other restrictions on them that will be enforced by local authorities who know the owners much better than some DC bureaucrat. In other words, the status quo. Of course we will continue to get nightly news broadcasts with stories of automatic weapons fights in the street.....what? we don't get stories like that? Maybe something is working....or maybe the effectiveness of full auto is overrated in most circumstances. Probably the reason the military went to the three shot burst.

Do me a favor and google "Second amendment interpretation". You are one of the very few who seems to REALLY know what the Second Amendment means.

Here are a few articles on the subject:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/07/168834...nterpretations

http://ezinearticles.com/?Interpreta...Law&id=6311996

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

I do think states have acted, for the most part, responsibly when enacting gun control laws. In some cases, not so responsibly. I personally do not want a 5-year old being allowed to enter my home with a fully loaded M-16. Gun control legislation IMHO should prohibit that. Gun control legislation should also, IMHO, not keep an individual from protecting himself or his home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I will repeat the obvious once again......
Problems begin when all these "interpretations are allowed. How difficult is it for even a child to comprehend the words "shall not be infringed" ?
Does anyone really need the feds,the states, cities or a bench to decipher that phrase ?
No, it is self evident in its own proclaim. There is no need for any one or thing to twist or re-interpret it to their own liking. Each time you allow a new re-interpretation more corruption of original intent takes place. It is not the IRS tax code, it is not complex at all.
It does NOT state shall not be infringed upon except by :
the will of 85% of the people,the state of XYZ, any city, court, or political group that decides it necessary.

I think if a teen gets and uses a gun for nefarious reasons then he should no longer be considered a teen and should be treated like an adult. After all that's how he wants to be seen if he is going to such lengths. If he, or his parent or guardian(provided he is not legally emancipated), then decides "after the fact" that he doesn't want to be treated as an adult, and his parent or guardian is willing, he gives them up to suffer the consequences of his actions.

Of course an individual has a right to ban guns from his home. That's not a second amendment issue.

I actually don't believe automatic weapons such as the M-16 should be banned....and they aren't. Originally Posted by boardman

You didn't answer the first question at all. The question is should that teen be able to legally own and carry a handgun in public? Or someone younger than a teen? Should there be an age limit on when someone can legally carry a gun? That is gun control.

Second, if I do not allow someone into my home with a gun, or an establishment does not allow people into their establishment with a gun (Such as movie theaters in Aurora, Colorado), that is gun control. Many people on this forum interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right to carry any weapon in any place by any one.

Your questions are a little disingenuous.

1. Do you believe that there should be age restrictions on having unlimited access to handguns?

Why add that word to the discussion? What does it mean to you? Is access the same thing as purchase (it does to a local sheriff in Platte County)? We're talking about a law and have to be precise.

2. Do you believe that an individual has the right to ban guns from his/her home?

This entire question has nothing to do with laws made by the government so is a non-starter to begin with.

3. Do you believe that certain weapons such as an M-16 should be banned from the general public?

Come on! Go big or go home. Most of your ilk will use the rocket launcher or nuclear bomb attack at this point. You want to sound reasonable so you go with the M16, why not the AK47? In any event the devil is in the details again. The AR15 is very much like the M16 but it is NOT the M16. Still many gun grabbers will lump them together because of look and not function. Let me ask you this, do really mean to say "automatic weapons" or "assault weapons" in general? Assuming you mean "automatic weapons" I would say no to an outright ban for a couple or reasons; I do not trust government to create a working law since you always have trouble defining the problem. The other is that government COULD place a tax on automatic weapons making it very difficult to afford them (but not impossible) and place other restrictions on them that will be enforced by local authorities who know the owners much better than some DC bureaucrat. In other words, the status quo. Of course we will continue to get nightly news broadcasts with stories of automatic weapons fights in the street.....what? we don't get stories like that? Maybe something is working....or maybe the effectiveness of full auto is overrated in most circumstances. Probably the reason the military went to the three shot burst. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I went back and added "unlimited" to my question to make it broader. I don't think it is a difficult question to understand. I'll make it easier for you. Should there be an age limit as to when someone should be allowed to walk down the street with a handgun strapped to his/her side? That is gun control.

The second question is also a simple one but again I'll make it easier for you. Not allowing people to carry handguns into establishments (a home is an establishment) such as some movie theaters, military bases, and any other establishment that chooses to ban them, is gun control. In past threads you and YOUR ilk have consistently argued against gun free zones. Right now there is a proposed bill in the Texas legislature asking that certain establishments allow concealed gun license holders to carry their handguns into those establishments. Also, there will be a proposed bill forcing public colleges in the state of Texas to allow those with CHLs the right to carry their handguns anywhere on campus. So don't tell us that government cannot control where people can carry handguns.

On the 3rd point, I didn't want to turn this into a discussion on which weapons are automatic, semi-automatic, and which should or should not be banned from the general public. I fully expected you to support the right to purchase M-16s. The question was would you support the right of ANYONE to purchase and carry an M-16?