Who Shouldnt Have Guns?

[palerider]

However the actual interpretation of that right to own vs carrying anywhere vs restrictions on criminal & mentally deficient people vs things like the reasonably enacted and upheld by the High Court restrictions on things like fully automatic weapons and silencers etc. is interpretive due to inclusion of wording such as "a well regulated militia". Even if one believes that at the time the founders thought of EVERYBODY as "the militia" which in itself is debateable... there's still that well regulated part.

The "interperetation" issue comes in because you aren't applying your argument to what the constitution says. You are applying your argument to what you wish it said.

In one sentence you say that you agree that we have the right to bear arms and then you change the entire argument saying that there is some interpretaional argument between carrying and owning. Do you know what "bear" means? The constitution doesn't address owning vs carrying and they don't need to because they used the word bear. Your argument rests on a concept that isn't even considered within the constitution.

And how you see yourself is irrelavent if in fact, you are in disagreement.

 

[samsara15]

Yes as Seneca has point out there are legal means to own just about any military hardware. Its a matter of cost and permits though. Of course the average person cannot go into a shop and buy one, its a somewhat complicated process but possible. Now being in California, I am not sure what the state and local laws are there. But no doubt among the most strict in the nation. Most of the pistol boxes I own have a big sticker on it that says "illegal in California". Because they have magazines that accept more than 10 rounds.

We also have machine gun shoots and working cannon examples, the whole nine yards. Just got to know where to go. Most times during those machine shoots, you can throw down whatever it costs for ammo and have a go at it.

I got to shoot a M1919 a few years back. I occassionally shoot a 30.06 for hunting uses and love the round. Having the chance to crank off 250 rounds of 30.06 in about a minute of actual shooting definately put a smile on my face.

I don't think you can own, or test, nuclear weapons.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Are you sure about that? Jet fighters (way too expensive for me anyway), howitzers, morters, machine guns?

I don't think fully automatic weapons are legal, at least not in California. What state did you say you lived in again?

Yup, 100% sure! As far as fully automatic weapons being legal, yup again, even in California (where do you think the guys from Mythbusters do their shows from?).

Here's a video from a full-auto shoot in Virginia back in '05. Men, women, and yes even children firing M-60's, Uzi's, M-2 .50 cal machineguns, MG-34's, M-240's, and even an old 12 pound CANNON!

Here's one from '06, and they shoot EVERYTHING!!!

Do you like tanks and howitzers? Check these vids out, at least one from as recent as '08.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I don't think fully automatic weapons are legal, at least not in California.

That's something that really bothers me about Libtard States like California. They seem to think that it's OK to infringe on peoples Constitutional rights if they don't agree with them, but let's look at the flaws in that position.

What if the old Confederate states decided that they didn't like the 13th Amendment, and decided on their own that it was OK to own slaves? How much hew and cry would go up over that, and how long do you think it would last? What if Utah decided that they didn't like the First Amendment prohibition against "state religion", and made Mormon the official State religion, and if you weren't Mormon you had to leave or be imprisoned? What if some states decided that they didn't like the 15th Amendment, and decided to ignore it too? What do you think would happen if Vermont decided that they didn't want to have to bother with search warrants any more because they were too much trouble?

What makes anyone think that there are "exceptions" to the very clear verbiage of the 2nd Amendment, but not to any of the other Amendments, or for that matter, in the body of the Constitution itself? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are there for a reason, and they may not be infringed upon, nor abrogated simply because someone decides that they don't like it, because once THAT door is opened, it's almost impossible to close it again, as we're plainly seeing today. Franklin has been proven correct, the sheeple have surrendered their Liberty for a bit of security, and now they have NEITHER.

 

[Bob the Builder]

I don't think you can own, or test, nuclear weapons.

Why not?

 

[top gun]

The "interperetation" issue comes in because you aren't applying your argument to what the constitution says. You are applying your argument to what you wish it said.

In one sentence you say that you agree that we have the right to bear arms and then you change the entire argument saying that there is some interpretaional argument between carrying and owning. Do you know what "bear" means? The constitution doesn't address owning vs carrying and they don't need to because they used the word bear. Your argument rests on a concept that isn't even considered within the constitution.

And how you see yourself is irrelavent if in fact, you are in disagreement.

In the Constitution where is says all men are created equal did that mean just all men or all people? Because it clearly says only men.

 

[top gun]

Yes as Seneca has point out there are legal means to own just about any military hardware. Its a matter of cost and permits though. Of course the average person cannot go into a shop and buy one, its a somewhat complicated process but possible. Now being in California, I am not sure what the state and local laws are there. But no doubt among the most strict in the nation. Most of the pistol boxes I own have a big sticker on it that says "illegal in California". Because they have magazines that accept more than 10 rounds.

We also have machine gun shoots and working cannon examples, the whole nine yards. Just got to know where to go. Most times during those machine shoots, you can throw down whatever it costs for ammo and have a go at it.

I got to shoot a M1919 a few years back. I occassionally shoot a 30.06 for hunting uses and love the round. Having the chance to crank off 250 rounds of 30.06 in about a minute of actual shooting definately put a smile on my face.

You are correct Bunz. I had a friend that had a Federal Firearms Permit allowing him to buy full auto weapons and it has a lot of strict requirements to obtain and was expensive.

Pretty much if you have a permit to buy full auto weapons the Feds are all over everything you do. You are constantly being checked and rechecked.

And as far as the Mythbuster set that was brought up. They have the police and/or police bomb squad provide those weapons for their tests.

 

[top gun]

And the ONLY restriction is one based on the judgement of a court of law, on a case by case basis, against a specific individual for violating the law of the land and being imprisoned, or against a specific individual being adjudicated to be mentally unfit to possess a weapon. Any other restrictions, including "background checks" are totally unconstitutional on it's face.

Not true. Background checks are and have been in effect for a long time now.

It is quite well regulated, in Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code.

There's nothing " well regulated" at all about a person just buying a gun. Age restrictions, mandatory firearms training, background checks, organized with a chain of command... things like that would be "well regulated".

There's no "whining" to it tg, that's YOUR game. As a Deputy Sheriff...

You lost me right there. You're no more a deputy Sheriff than I'm Rush Limbaugh.

Oh really??? Don't you remember the recent case in Atlanta where a prisoner overpowered the Baliff and got away? Why shouldn't ordinary citizens (obviously not prisoners) be permitted to carry their legally owned firearms in a courtroom? What are you afraid of? Every courtroom I've ever been in has AT LEAST 3 armed Baliffs, so what's your point?

Because only a complete moron would want the gallery in the courtroom to be armed ready to take street vengeance out on defendants and intimidate testifying witnesses.

In 20 years as a Deputy I've NEVER seen such an incident. I have heard of it happening, and that's what the Baliffs are there for.

Oh please spare us the bull. At least try to be an astronaut or something.

As for the rest of your drivel, unless or until YOU put on a uniform and do the job that I've been doing for 20 years, you're an idiot who doesn't have the first clue what he's blathering on about.

Well I can easily tell from listening to you that the only time you've had any police uniform on was when you were doing the YMCA.

 

[Bob the Builder]

And as far as the Mythbuster set that was brought up. They have the police and/or police bomb squad provide those weapons for their tests.

Nope. On the one where they tested the myth about cutting a tree in half with a machinegun, they were using privately owned weapons, including an M-134 7.62mm minigun. They also used the minigun on a couple of other episodes, and again it is a privately owned weapon.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Not true. Background checks are and have been in effect for a long time now.

Are you reading impaired? I didn't say they weren't done, I said that they were unconstitutional? There are, and have been since the beginning of our country, laws that are and were unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that those unconstitutional laws weren't inforced until they were overturned.

There's nothing " well regulated" at all about a person just buying a gun. Age restrictions, mandatory firearms training, background checks, organized with a chain of command... things like that would be "well regulated".

Really? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to show the class exactly where in Title 10 and Title 32 of the United States Code (the regulating authority) where it requires, mandates, or even suggests things like "age restrictions, mandatory firearms training" or "background checks"? The organization and chain of command are quite clearly contained in the aforementioned Codes.

You lost me right there. You're no more a deputy Sheriff than I'm Rush Limbaugh.

It doesn't take much to "lose" you tg, but apparantly you aren't aware that ALL Sheriffs Deputies (regular or aux.) are considered to be 'on duty' 24/7/365 and therefore are expected to be armed at all times.

Oh, and you're not nearly smart enough to be Rush. In fact, you don't even make a good Howard Stern!

Because only a complete moron would want the gallery in the courtroom to be armed ready to take street vengeance out on defendants and intimidate testifying witnesses.

You obviously missed the part about ARMED BALIFFS being in the courtroom? Now perhaps you live in some silly part of the country where your Baliff aren't armed, but ours are, and they're all full time Deputies.

Oh please spare us the bull. At least try to be an astronaut or something.

That's OK, you're enough of a SpaceCadet as is.

Well I can easily tell from listening to you that the only time you've had any police uniform on was when you were doing the YMCA.

No, that was your butt-buddy.

 

[Bob the Builder]

That's something that really bothers me about Libtard States like California. They seem to think that it's OK to infringe on peoples Constitutional rights if they don't agree with them, but let's look at the flaws in that position.

What if the old Confederate states decided that they didn't like the 13th Amendment, and decided on their own that it was OK to own slaves? How much hew and cry would go up over that, and how long do you think it would last? What if Utah decided that they didn't like the First Amendment prohibition against "state religion", and made Mormon the official State religion, and if you weren't Mormon you had to leave or be imprisoned? What if some states decided that they didn't like the 15th Amendment, and decided to ignore it too? What do you think would happen if Vermont decided that they didn't want to have to bother with search warrants any more because they were too much trouble?

What makes anyone think that there are "exceptions" to the very clear verbiage of the 2nd Amendment, but not to any of the other Amendments, or for that matter, in the body of the Constitution itself? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are there for a reason, and they may not be infringed upon, nor abrogated simply because someone decides that they don't like it, because once THAT door is opened, it's almost impossible to close it again, as we're plainly seeing today. Franklin has been proven correct, the sheeple have surrendered their Liberty for a bit of security, and now they have NEITHER.

BUMP! Come on libs, answer this one....if you dare.

 

[Bob the Builder]

In the Constitution where is says all men are created equal did that mean just all men or all people? Because it clearly says only men.

OK tg, your butt buddy BUNZ didn't like me calling you a dumbass (no matter how richly you deserved it), and he even gave me a warning about it (but of course what can we expect from a libtard Mod but to protect his libtard butt buddies) so we'll try it this way.

ARE YOU FRICKIN BRAIN DEAD??? You don't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and you've got the temerity to even try to discuss it, much less to tell people what they mean??? ROTFLMFAO at YOU!!!

QUIT SMOKING CRACK!!!!

 

[top gun]

OK tg, your butt buddy BUNZ didn't like me calling you a dumbass (no matter how richly you deserved it), and he even gave me a warning about it (but of course what can we expect from a libtard Mod but to protect his libtard butt buddies) so we'll try it this way.

ARE YOU FRICKIN BRAIN DEAD??? You don't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and you've got the temerity to even try to discuss it, much less to tell people what they mean??? ROTFLMFAO at YOU!!!

QUIT SMOKING CRACK!!!!

Say what you want about me but I think you're way out of line speaking to Bunz and the Mods that way.

These people volunteer to do the work so we have a place to debate and you come in and think you can be the big bully and not only insult the other posters but also just ream the Moderators when you go too far and they have to say something.

Hell they've let you go on for weeks & weeks personally insulting everybody you didn't agree with and never said a single word to you. I'm guessing hoping you'd police yourself a little bit. That's how they run this forum.

THIS IS THE MOST FAIR, THE MOST OPEN FORUM YOU'LL EVER FIND!

And if you had a hair on your ass you'd apologize to both Bunz and the all Mods.

As far as my statement where I said the Constitution I made a mistake it was the DI that I was referencing. I'm capable of making. And I'm capable of admitting it.

But my point stands the same. There is interpretation and the way of speaking was different back 200 years ago. In the DI when they said all men are created equal they meant all people. But they said ALL MEN.

So when we look at historical documents it's more than just complete face value or words.

I apologize to all you Mods for bringing this tirade onto you.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Say what you want about me but I think you're way out of line speaking to Bunz and the Mods that way.

<blah, blah, blah>

THIS IS THE MOST FAIR, THE MOST OPEN FORUM YOU'LL EVER FIND!

HORSECRAP! The only Mod I've seen say anything to anyone is Bunz, and the only ones he seems to be bothered by is conservatives, or anyone who throws your libtard BS back in your faces. You libtards LIE, OBFUSCATE, and ATTACK any and every conservative on the board on a DAILY basis, but nothing is ever said to any of you, which PROVES that Bunz is TOTALLY PARTISAN, and like I told him in the PM after he gave me the warning, he's not qualified to be a Mod in a FAT FARM, much less a political forum.

And if you had a hair on your ass you'd apologize to both Bunz and the all Mods.

I'll apologize to him when YOU and the rest of the Libtard Obliviots around here apologize to every conservative here, and not until.

As far as my statement where I said the Constitution I made a mistake it was the DI that I was referencing. I'm capable of making. And I'm capable of admitting it.

But my point stands the same. There is interpretation and the way of speaking was different back 200 years ago. In the DI when they said all men are created equal they meant all people. But they said ALL MEN.

So when we look at historical documents it's more than just complete face value or words.

Your problem is that you haven't read enough of the pertinent documents to be able to "interpret" them, because if you had you'd understand that no "interpretation" is necessary! The FF's knew exactly what they wanted to say, which is why they chose and used the words that they did, so that ANY AVERAGE CITIZEN walking down the street would know EXACTLY what it meant without having to have anyone "interpret" it for them, or explain what it meant!

The only people who have to "interpret" the Constitution are 1) mentally deficient mouthbreathing morons who are utterly incapable of comprehending the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and 2) Libtards who refuse to accept that the Constitution is the law of the land, and who are too lazy, or stupid to understand that if you don't like it, you don't simply ignore it, or "interpret" it to say something that it never did, you AMEND it, like the FF's made provision for you to do in Article 5!

I apologize to all you Mods for bringing this tirade onto you.[/COLOR]

You need to apologize to whomever it was that paid for your education, because you ripped them off!

 

[top gun]

It doesn't take much to "lose" you tg, but apparantly you aren't aware that ALL Sheriffs Deputies (regular or aux.) are considered to be 'on duty' 24/7/365and therefore are expected to be armed at all times.

But you are not a police officer of any kind. You're a poser. And your own rambling in your posts makes it far too easy to point out.

You were raving mad because you couldn't carry a gun into the courthouse.

Yet police officers ARE allowed to carry their sidearms into a courthouse.

You said in every courtroom you've ever been in there's been at least 3 bailiffs with guns.

Yet there's is only 1 bailiff armed or unarmed assigned to each judge and each courtroom.

Don't bother giving us some song and dance now... you're busted straight out as a poser. You obviously don't think highly enough of your "builder" life to just stick to who you really are.

And personally I don't care.