The 2nd Amendment

I would suggest an update in your news. There was NO ASSULT weapon that guy used. They were all handguns. How are you still running off the initial reports? Every single thing they said in the beginning was a lie. Everything. You Antigun morons are such an embarrassment. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

You need to up date he used the rifle with 30 round clips....Even had a pic of the officer carrying it from the school...

Drive down to your local sheriffs office and turn them all in, how do you feel about that Tim? Thats exactly what you will be required to do if these gun bans proposals come to fruition. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Chica, you are almost as ridiculous as LK, and that is saying something. In short, you disgust me.

TP, I suggest you do exactly as you suggest, it may not lead to anything, but it is at least a statement which will cost you very little. Take those guns, maybe to a rifle range or gun club, tell them to keep them under lock and key, and you will go whe you want and use them on the range and have fun.

If 10,000 people do the same, it will mean something. Maybe nothing practical, but real men will have stood up and been counted. It will be a change in culture, it will be a negation of all the wrong images of manhood.

You will feel much better at yourself, you will realise that 'love' is not an appropriate term for guns, and that you have done your part, however little, for balancing the equaltion. And you have lost nothing in your hobby.

Heck I can understand the fun in firing powerful weapons in a safe environment, nothing wrong in that. My best friend at school joined the navy, and waxed lyrical about the boom depth charges made. I love really powerful rockets. I used to be thrilled standing behind Concord as it took off at heathrow.

this entire debate runs to the core of why America is viewed as a barbaric, medieval society by the rest of the Western world. Ever wonder why we're constantly at odds with the Muslim world? Maybe it's because we're on the same level of civilization. We call them barbarians, but the only difference in terms of this discussion is the pulled pork... We have it. they don't.

You guys are disgraceful.

Chica, you are almost as ridiculous as LK, and that is saying something. In short, you disgust me. Originally Posted by essence

Excellent, I'm not here to make everyone all warm and fuzzy.

aaaaah

Sometimes we all need to be reminded . . .

. . . Just how to write an insult!

Damn! That hurt!

There is nothing I can say that will get your head out off your ass for nothing critically thinking anything I B Hankering or myself has said. You lack the ability to understand what words mean, clear evidence in the lack of understanding of the supreme court cases listed in the militia post I made. You want to talk gun control on an escort forum? LOL, why don't you be a man and create an account on anyone of the fine gun forums there are. I'm sure you can find people that'll wipe the floor with you and knock you off your high horse when it comes to the second amendment. I dare you go go create a post, with the same name you have here, and show us how smart you really are.

Come to think I was going to participate in a thought-provoking thread, but then get insulted by an idiot.
Again, I cannot debate with idiots, so I am going to stand down.


Originally Posted by YoHou

I'm not a big fan of the gun-nut sites, but this has some real good thoughts

http://www.blackfive.net/ Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

The Founders could not have envisioned a 24/7 news cycle with blaring soundtracks, garish headlines, and a relentless, almost pornographic sensationalism.

The Founders also could not envision Walmart or a Bushmaster. They wrote an amendment that dealt with weapons that took 10-30 seconds to load between shots.

If there were the types of guns now available back then, do you think they would have written the 2nd the way they did?

I have a Mini 14 and a CX4 Storm, both with 30 rd mags among other capacities.

I could live with 10 round mags.

The Founders also could not envision Walmart or a Bushmaster. They wrote an amendment that dealt with weapons that took 10-30 seconds to load between shots.

If there were the types of guns now available back then, do you think they would have written the 2nd the way they did? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

That is the "beauty" and "wisdom" of the document and the thoughts of the authors.

They didn't have to "envision Walmart or a Bushmaster"

... they only had to "envision" that the weapons of the Government would change with time and so it was appropriate for those of the citizens to change as well ....

... the same with the 1st amendment and the method of communication.

And in their infinite wisdom they recommended the SCOTUS to sort it all out as society changed and the weapons appropriate to meet the threat of our Government, or at least give the Citizen a fighting chance. With that "back drop" they were painfully aware that unlawful shootings occurred and that there were laws and gallows to address those errant souls.

Did you say something?

Why do y'all try and actually discuss stuff with trolls? Is it full filling in some way? You have to know yOull never be able to turn on a light for people that don't even have eyes.

Did y'all see the article about the UN bringing its own soliders to work with FEMA to force disarmament. Boots already on the ground. Do a search. I don't have time. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

The entire post is projection. Your bulbs burned out years ago. Then you went and bought a pair. Obviously not direct replacements.

By what process would UN soldiers be brought into the states?
By what process can UN soldiers be used anywhere? Do you know?

I would suggest an update in your news. There was NO ASSULT weapon that guy used. They were all handguns. How are you still running off the initial reports? Every single thing they said in the beginning was a lie. Everything. You Antigun morons are such an embarrassment. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Every single thing you said was not true. You know, a lie.

You anti-truth types are an embarassment to yourselves. And you aren't smart enough to understand any good insults

Learn how to use google.

That is the "beauty" and "wisdom" of the document and the thoughts of the authors.

They didn't have to "envision Walmart or a Bushmaster"

... they only had to "envision" that the weapons of the Government would change with time and so it was appropriate for those of the citizens to change as well ....

... the same with the 1st amendment and the method of communication.

And in their infinite wisdom they recommended the SCOTUS to sort it all out as society changed and the weapons appropriate to meet the threat of our Government, or at least give the Citizen a fighting chance. With that "back drop" they were painfully aware that unlawful shootings occurred and that there were laws and gallows to address those errant souls. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's the beauty of opinion.

It isn't the weapon type you have at the house that determines whether or not you take on the government. The Viet Cong didn't start out with AK-47s.

AR-15s don't do too well against Bradleys and Abrams. Or drones or any other numerous military weapon systems.
Why bother with AR-15s when any rifle with a determined man behind it is more than enough to start an M-16 collection. I might not start with an AR-15 but I would finish with an M-16 type.

Stick around in an engagement for more than 10 minutes and you'll be dealing with air power and artillery.

That's the beauty of opinion.

It isn't the weapon type you have at the house that determines whether or not you take on the government. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

you left something out of my comment ...

..." or at least give the Citizen a fighting chance. "

The "Revolutionaries" in this country didn't "go it alone," ....

... but received outside assistance .... just like the Texas Independence ....

The "Government" doesn't drive the "Bradleys and Abrams" or stear the "drones" or operate "any other numerous military weapon systems." It will depend on brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and fathers and mothers of some on the other side.

I would rather have, than not have; then at least I might have a response to those who might attempt to take advantage of the chaos for personal gain.

There seems to be some confusion, and the protaganists keep shifting.

Are we talking about militia and citizens protecting themselves against tyrannical government forces, and the maintenance of balance of forces between government and citizens?

Or are we talking about individual right for arms to defend individuals against anti social individuals?

You can;t talk about individual defence and then justify the weapons by comparing against governemnt weapons. Doesn;t make sense.

Of course, any idea of individuals being able to use weapons against modern government forces of mature democracies is farcical.

What, in the last 50 years, has caused tyrannical governments to be overthrowm? In Russia, China, Egypt, etc. etc etc. The governments, in terms of pure armaments, were vastly superior to the population.

What causes the erosion of tyranny and the establishment of democracy is much more complex and subtle.

There seems to be some confusion, and the protaganists keep shifting. Originally Posted by essence

It would be confusing to a foreignor.

The 2nd amendment was a "response" to the oppression of your fore fathers.

Of course, it's confusing to you.

"What, in the last 50 years, has caused tyrannical governments to be overthrowm? In Russia, China, Egypt, etc. etc etc. The governments, in terms of pure armaments, were vastly superior to the population."

But the "population" had to operate and deploy the armaments.

It would be confusing to a foreignor.

The 2nd amendment was a "response" to the oppression of your fore fathers.

Of course, it's confusing to you.

"What, in the last 50 years, has caused tyrannical governments to be overthrowm? In Russia, China, Egypt, etc. etc etc. The governments, in terms of pure armaments, were vastly superior to the population."

But the "population" had to operate and deploy the armaments. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You miss my point entirely.

So Russian tranny was overthrown because the population was better armed than the army?

Oh yes, Oh yes, Oh yes, what amazing insight and clear adherence to truth, with no hidden agenda.

Do you have a favorite Russian tranny, Essence? Or will you accept any Eastern European tranny? There may be some trannies in Houston you might enjoy. Not for me, but whatever turns you on.

But I don't approve of taking up arms against any tranny. What they do in the privacy of their home is no business of mine.