Hello There, Guest!

  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fellow Gun Nuts
#31
cmfitzg Wrote:My quibble is with the Gun-Lobby, not the US Constitution per se, and their use of a seriously old document to justify their macho behaviour. All constitutional documents should be subject to review and revision over time because things change and the relevance of a document can diminish.


This "seriously old document" is still the basis of our laws today, thus gun owners are right to use the 2nd amendment to justify their ownership. The US constitution can be changed and revised over time and has been, thus the AMENDMENTS. I am sorry if you don't agree with what the US constitution says, but it is still VERY RELEVANT today. To put down the use of the US constitution because it doesn't match your belief is simply wrong. Sorry.
 Reply
#32
TB 2 IBO Wrote:
ibofightback Wrote:It's not at all off-topic. Isn't your side of the debate all about personal freedom? Why do you disallow nukes from that?

This deserves an IBOFB patented, "Oh good grief!." It is absolutely off-topic. Personal freedom does not equal absolute freedom. Give me a break.


Interesting. I consider it the CORE of the discussion. I suspect cmfitzg does as well, as he first mention nukes I think?

The point is, you've clearly drawn a line somewhere. I and cmfitzg have drawn it somewhere else. So ... how do you justify where you draw the line?

My line is drawn basically at the point where something stops being primarily designed for the purpose of killing people. So cars, despite the carnage they cause, are fine because they have a primary purpose other than killing folk.

The primary purpose of guns is to kill people (professional uses mentioned earlier excluded). I think only official sanctioned groups such as police and armed forces should have that kind of licence.

How do you justify where you draw the line?
 Reply
#33
ibofightback wrote:Ummm ... this is a bit of a stretch. It was the American armed forces that helped liberate Europe and defend the UK, not American citizens with guns in their homes.
______________________________________________________________________________________
IBOFB dont forget the Canadian force. Smaller but help a lot in Normandie (France) in the 2nd world war.

By the way, with all the respect that i got for our neighbors and friends of USA, i prefer our Canadian system. It is possible to have a firearm but you need a permit. When crazy people want to possess one, theire demand are reject. The system is not perfect but at least a bit of control. More firearm in circulation and more opportunity for crazy people to find one.

When you live in a country of liberty and can vote, can say what you want about politics and others, you don't need guns in the name of liberty. The liberty of a person stop when your way of living afect the liberty and security of others.

By the way, why the statistics of suicide are higher in the police force and in the army compare to civil people?
Answer: Because when the got psychologic problems and they think about suicide, they got theire gun near them, compare to civil who need to search a gun and by the time they find one they had come down,,,

:confused:
 Reply
#34
Synergik Wrote:ibofightback wrote:Ummm ... this is a bit of a stretch. It was the American armed forces that helped liberate Europe and defend the UK, not American citizens with guns in their homes.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Quote:IBOFB dont forget the Canadian force. Smaller but help a lot in Normandie (France) in the 2nd world war.


And the australians and new zealanders and indians and and and .... Smile

Normandie is a very moving place, particularly the US war memorial. If you're ever in the area, I recommend a visit.
 Reply
#35
Synergik Wrote:By the way, with all the respect that i got for our neighbors and friends of USA, i prefer our Canadian system. It is possible to have a firearm but you need a permit. When crazy people want to possess one, theire demand are reject. The system is not perfect but at least a bit of control. More firearm in circulation and more opportunity for crazy people to find one.


Permits simply hassle legitimate users when getting a gun. Criminals are going to get a gun if they want one. They aren't going to apply for a permit. They don't care about the laws to begin with.

Synergik Wrote:When you live in a country of liberty and can vote, can say what you want about politics and others, you don't need guns in the name of liberty. The liberty of a person stop when your way of living afect the liberty and security of others.


Individuals with guns fighting together is what won that liberty and freedom from the previous gov't. If you think that just because you have the freedom to vote now means you will never have to stand up for your liberties ever again is foolish. Hopefully you never will. But taking guns away from the public and only giving control to the gov't makes it way too easy for a corrupt gov't or military leader to take control and take away your liberties.

Synergik Wrote:By the way, why the statistics of suicide are higher in the police force and in the army compare to civil people?
Answer: Because when the got psychologic problems and they think about suicide, they got theire gun near them, compare to civil who need to search a gun and by the time they find one they had come down,,,


I am sorry, but the things these people have to see and deal with in their careers and it's affect on them will attribute way more to that than the accesibility of a gun. If someone wants to kill theirself they can do it without a gun. :doh:
 Reply
#36
ibofightback Wrote:The point is, you've clearly drawn a line somewhere. I and cmfitzg have drawn it somewhere else. So ... how do you justify where you draw the line?

Again, it is called the United States of America's Constitution. It is not where I draw the line, it where the framers of that amendment drew it. It clearly says we have the right to bear them, as well as decided by the supreme court later on that defined exactly what it meant.

Where the CORE of this topic was the trashing our constitution for knee-jerk expedient actions. That is the debate.

Quote:My line is drawn basically at the point where something stops being primarily designed for the purpose of killing people. So cars, despite the carnage they cause, are fine because they have a primary purpose other than killing folk.
While a person may agree or disagree...Your line is irrelevant. Your line, while good for you and perhaps your country has zero to do with US constitution.
Quote:The primary purpose of guns is to kill people (professional uses mentioned earlier excluded). I think only official sanctioned groups such as police and armed forces should have that kind of licence.
That is fine, but still irrelevant.
Quote:How do you justify where you draw the line?
Currently I choose not to have a gun in my home. For some of the reasons we have spoke about in this debate. However, I do love the idea and freedom, that if I choose to own a gun, I can. As well as not wear helmet (which I do wear), not wear a seat belt (which varies from time to time).
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#37
TB 2 IBO Wrote:Again, it is called the United States of America's Constitution. It is not where I draw the line, it where the framers of that amendment drew it. It clearly says we have the right to bear them, as well as decided by the supreme court later on that defined exactly what it meant.


Right, so you believe people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. Bombs are clearly "arms".

Where the CORE of this topic was the trashing our constitution for knee-jerk expedient actions. That is the debate.

Quote:While a person may agree or disagree...Your line is irrelevant. Your line, while good for you and perhaps your country has zero to do with US constitution.

So, again, since the constitution doesn't define what "arms" are, that means its OK for folk to own stinger missles, nuclear weapons, tanks, aircrat carriers, heck biological and chemical weapons as well!

You can't have it both ways, TB2IBO.
 Reply
#38
Synergik,

Just so you know. The US does have rules and regulations and laws for gun ownership.

It is not the owning of a gun that we are debating, necessarily. It is the right given to us by our constitution to make that decision for ourselves. Obviously this sentiment can be taken to the extreme bordering on insanity...as with IBOFB's nuke example, but I think as a general rule the more freedoms a person has the better off they will be. Hence, my call for limited government.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#39
TB2IBO,
let's take it less extreme then.

Why does the US constitution protect the right to own a semi-automatic weapon (currently legal in the US) but not an automatic weapon (currently illegal).

Can you point me to the paragraph where it distinguishes them, or do you believe it also supports ownership of automatic weapons?
 Reply
#40
ibofightback Wrote:Right, so you believe people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. Bombs are clearly "arms".

:banghead:

Quote:So, again, since the constitution doesn't define what "arms" are, that means its OK for folk to own stinger missles, nuclear weapons, tanks, aircrat carriers, heck biological and chemical weapons as well!

You can't have it both ways, TB2IBO.

Did you live under power lines as kid IBOFB?? Our laws define what those "arms" can and can not be. (Remember...not no government...limited government)
Although I would love to own an M-1 Tank. That would be a sweet way to commute or drop off products to my customers!! :grin: :grin:
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)