Once more into the breach

[Treasure_Hunter]

Gentlemen, it really matters not what you think. You can have an opinion, but it will be the people you voted for and put into office as U.S. House members or Senators that will decide the future of everything from slingshots to cannons. I doubt that any of us will receive a phone call asking for our opinions or desires. Sorry to be so frank and brutal, but that's just life in these United States...

I strongly disagree, what we think does matter, politicians want to be re-elected, if they know the American people will throw them out they will think twice, if they know the american people will take up arms if need be to defend their rights they will think twice...... I will not live under a king, or 2 bit dictator period.......

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Crispin]

You have once again missed the whole point. Who said anyone needs to compromise? Liberals always talk about compromise. They get a little and then come back later and ask for another compromise. It is called accretion. I do not wish to surrender any more of my rights to make liberals feel better. You want compromise? First you have to prove any of the "little" "reasonable" things you want will actually solve any problem. Limiting magazines to six shots will do nothing. Just carry more magazines. It takes just a few seconds to change one. With a speed loader I can reload a revolver with six new rounds in five seconds or less. Nothing gained. Then why should anyone compromise?

No bayonet lug. "You don't need a bayonet to hunt". (1) who said anything about hunting? (2) When is the last time somebody took a fully loaded rifle into a place and started bayonetting people? Once again, no problem solved. How about no flash supressor? The theory being that the flash suppressor makes it harder for the FBI, Cops or whoever to shoot back if they can't see you. Oops, wrong again. A flash supressor does not hide you from anyone. It is used at night to prevent the flash from the rifle from momentarily blinding the shooter. It helps a little. So, wrong again. Next? How about black rifles? Okay, should we make them all pink? Are they then less leathal?

Finally you want Registration. There are only three problems with that. (1) You will have to hire a whole new cadre of people across the country to do this and the records will soon be hacked and there will be fees for registration. (2) Most honest folks are never going to abide by such a silly rule, thus creating a nation of felons. (3) Do you honestly believe any criminal in possession of a gun is going to register it? Yeah, and right on the line where it asks your occupation, and they will, you put down, "Bank Robber". Even suppose for one second that everyone in the country does go and register. How in the world will this stop anyone from using the guns they have?

Next, I know, let's limit how much ammunition a person can buy and register that too. Do you know how easy it is to reload your own ammo? Busted again. Most reloaders make better rounds than you can buy and cheaper too.

It has never been proven by any standard that any form of gun control will stop violence.

I wonder if you ever sit back and read what you write. You set up little rules to make sure you can control the direction of the conversation. I hate to upset yoyur applecart, but there is no compromise. Go solve the real problems in this country, the problems created by fifty years of liberal thinking, and the horrible violence will end. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. They do it with knives, baseball bats, cars, and oh yes, abortion. I think the count on that score is up to 55,000,000 now.

Kill a man in a car and it is called vehicular manslaughter
Kill a man in a bar fight and it is called manslaughter
Hunt a man down and kill him and it is premeditated murder
Kill ten people in one event and it is called a spree killing
Kill fifty people over twenty years and it is called a serial killer
Kill six million people and it is called a holocaust.

Kill 55,000,000 babies and it is called ...Choice?

How about some compromise there?

Ummm, right. This thread is about compromise. May I please direct you to one of RJC's threads. I am sure you will find plenty of others that agree with you there and probably offer you a beer as well.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

If you try to turn this in to a joke I will lock it...............2nd amendment has nothing to do with nukes, tanks, or anything else like that.....

 

[Crispin]

If you try to turn this in to a joke I will lock it...............2nd amendment has nothing to do with nukes, tanks, or anything else like that.....

I am not joking. This is as serious as I have been in a while. The second amendment is about the right to defend ones freedom from tyranny, correct? Nukes, tanks, grenades, sarin nerve gas can all be used in warfare. If we had a civil war in this country you know they could come into play. I can't stop you from locking the thread. I'm trying to play within the rules and be polite.

 

[Dave44]

If we could write the law, If I were one of the founders I would have written, In the course of a nation and lifetime there may be times when a government, world power or individual will seek to take ones life and/or liberty in a benevolence witnessed throughout history, It is thus decreed that the people may need to act as a well armed militia in charge of there own destiny and will be guaranteed the right to all and afforded ANY weapons currently available at his/her discretion.

The founders had the elite weapons of their time, Many owned their own cannons.

Alas we have the Edward Bernaise types that must twist meanings and intentions of freedom.

did I make sense? I have a terrible cold started today, I may be a bit foggy. I still like auto ruffles

 

[Dave44]

sorry, I said tank. oops.

 

[dieselram94]

Crispin, I just got back on this thread. Did I miss your thoughts on semi auto riffles? Don't get me wrong, I am not willing to compromise on any rights.....ever. As you know the govt. is power hungry. We don't have to compromise so why would we? The govt. is by default the only winner if we compromise. I am interested in your views on this issue. As you know talking about a subject that you don't know much about (as you stated) is a good way to learn and form logical, fact based opinions.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Keep the thread directly related to the 2nd amendment, no insults, no name calling.....

The only arms the 2nd amendment is concerning are pistols, rifles and shootguns, everyone who knows anything about the 2nd amendment rights and debate knows that is what it is about...

 

[Crispin]

If we could write the law, If I were one of the founders I would have written, In the course of a nation and lifetime there may be times when a government, world power or individual will seek to take ones life and/or liberty in a benevolence witnessed throughout history, It is thus decreed that the people may need to act as a well armed militia in charge of there own destiny and will be guaranteed the right to all and afforded ANY weapons currently available at his/her discretion.

The founders had the elite weapons of their time, Many owned their own cannons.

Alas we have the Edward Bernaise types that must twist meanings and intentions of freedom.

did I make sense? I have a terrible cold started today, I may be a bit foggy. I still like auto ruffles

I like your definition. You made complete sense. All except the Edward Bernaise thing, I'm not familiar with him. So are we done or does anybody want to talk compromise. Dieselram, you still want to talk compromise? This is where we stand.

1. Debating restrictions on semi-AR. No felons, ammo may or may not be less then 100, open. Any more restrictions?

 

[bill from lachine]

Diesel,

Not trying to put words in Crispin's mouth.....but here's my take on the purpose of the exercise.....in any event this is just an exercise because whatever changes the government decides to take they'll take....but it does keep the brain cells working.....lol.

BosnMate,

The scary thing about his opening post is I actually understood it......I guess I'm not quite as daft as I thought.....I can't speak for Crispin but my take is at some point what is a reasonable limit on the amount of firepower that should be available to the general public.....without infringing the 2nd amendment at some point it becomes over the top, ie; automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, etc....

Appears he's trying to find an upper limit to where there's a chance that all parties can say enough is enough..if I'm off the mark I'm sure Crispin will correct me or clear things up.....not rocket science.....just an open discussion in a civil fashion.

Regards + HH

Bill

Originally Posted by BosnMate
I read your opening post, and I can't believe I read the whole thing. Is it or was it supposed to be about the second amendment and guns? If so you are playing about 3 bars above my comprehension level, but I think perhaps you want me to compromise my beliefs, the ones that were granted by God and enumerated in both the US and state constitutions, and I'm not much on compromising those principals, so I don't reckon I'll get in your game.

Crispin, I just got back on this thread. Did I miss your thoughts on semi auto riffles? Don't get me wrong, I am not willing to compromise on any rights.....ever. As you know the govt. is power hungry. We don't have to compromise so why would we? The govt. is by default the only winner if we compromise. I am interested in your views on this issue. As you know talking about a subject that you don't know much about (as you stated) is a good way to learn and form logical, fact based opinions.

 

[Crispin]

Keep the thread directly related to the 2nd amendment, no insults, no name calling.....

The only arms the 2nd amendment is concerning are pistols, rifles and shootguns, everyone who knows anything about the 2nd amendment rights and debate knows that is what it is about...

Okay, we have already covered pistols and shotguns. lets go top down on rifles. I oppose unlimited access to automatic rifles, anyone disagree?

 

[Crispin]

Crispin, I just got back on this thread. Did I miss your thoughts on semi auto riffles? Don't get me wrong, I am not willing to compromise on any rights.....ever. As you know the govt. is power hungry. We don't have to compromise so why would we? The govt. is by default the only winner if we compromise. I am interested in your views on this issue. As you know talking about a subject that you don't know much about (as you stated) is a good way to learn and form logical, fact based opinions.

i thought we agreed to restrict access to fully automatic pistols/hand guns?

 

[GrizLeeBear]

The second amendment is about the right to defend ones freedom from tyranny, correct?

No, this is incorrect. It is about the right to Keep and Bear Arms...for whatever legal purpose, be it hunting, self defense, target practice or whatever.

 

[dieselram94]

Crispin, as you know I am open minded on a lot of issues. However there are some convictions I hold very strongly such as upholding the Bill of Rights. I think you can see how Obama is becoming a dictator. The second's main purpose is to protect us from tyranny. Giving up this right and or compromising just does not make sense. It gives all the power to the govt. And we all know how responsibly the govt. acts. Remember Ruby Ridge?

 

[dieselram94]

i thought we agreed to restrict access to fully automatic pistols/hand guns?

I think we are getting confused as there are many posts now. I was agreeing on the amount of ammo a hand gun could hold (unrestricted). I believe for anything fully auto a class 3 license is required, thus already limited/restricted.

 

[GrizLeeBear]

i thought we agreed to restrict access to fully automatic pistols/hand guns?

Who agreed?

 

[GrizLeeBear]

Ummm, right. This thread is about compromise. May I please direct you to one of RJC's threads. I am sure you will find plenty of others that agree with you there and probably offer you a beer as well.

I prefer Scotch, single malt, well aged. Either way, No more compromise.

 

[Dave44]

I know,, i am a broken record, It is seriously HARD to get a Full Auto weapon,, a LOT of restrictions,, But Has one been used in the US? I can't remember one? But I am for them too, same reason as stated. Especially if I were in Chicago until it is cleaned up! with all the laws only the lawless have the weapons.

The mobs used a tommy when they could, against other bad guys similarly armed( not against the law at the time.) Because of the restrictions place on? oh yaeh Alchohol.

 

[dieselram94]

I like your definition. You made complete sense. All except the Edward Bernaise thing, I'm not familiar with him. So are we done or does anybody want to talk compromise. Dieselram, you still want to talk compromise? This is where we stand.

1. Debating restrictions on semi-AR. No felons, ammo may or may not be less then 100, open. Any more restrictions?

No felons is already the law. As far as ammo more or less than 100, do you mean in total owned/ carried/ stored? or do you mean in a magazine?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Okay Crispin you are going to fight the current MMA UFC Light Heavyweight Champion Jon "Bones" Jones for 5 rounds, but your going to compromise, you have to fight him with your right hand tied to your side as a compromise...............