Only 2 Gun Laws By Obama Total---Both Benefit Gun Owners --0 Guns BANNED in 5.5 Years

Kangaruex4Ewe

Skymon612

Obama has repeatedly express support for the Second Amendment. "If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away. Alright?" Obama has said.

If you like your doctor.... you can keep your doctor. If you like your healthcare plan... you can keep your healthcare plan.

I trust him this time though.

edit on 4/7/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

exactly!

he didnt take those things from you, but the insurance companies did.

facts are so pesky.

reply to post by stormson


Ah yes, but

"HE" promised it wouldn't happen didn't "HE"?

"HE" took campaign money from "THEM" didn't "HE".

"HE" got caught.

The PPACA clearly dictates insurance requirements.

From there, the companies must negotiate with medical providers and their networks.

That's where they screwed up.

It's 100% Obama-Democrat owned and operated.

reply to post by Skymon612


I live in Connecticut. I "used" to have 4 weapons, now I don't. I didn't sell them, I didn't lose them, no one stole them (Well, maybe Uncle Sam). So where did they go? Oh, wait, I had to render them inoperable or turn them in lest I risk becoming a felon. Maybe they are undocumented and can get all sorts of upgrades at no cost to me. That would be something.

NavyDoc


However, the writings we do have, especially in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, letters, lectures, commentary are all consistent in that regard. It is true we cannot definitely say that EVERY ONE of them had the same opinion, the writings we do have are consistent and that those all say essentially the same thing--that the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct.

You do realize that the Federalist Papers were basically written to convince New York to ratify the Constitution, yes? Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and a few by John Jay? Arguing FOR a strong Federal government?

I'm not finding the "sacrosanctity" of bearing arms in and of themselves (well with the exception of James Madison's rather famous tirade in Federalist No. 46), but I do find a several references to a "well ordered militia" in close concert with the right to bear arms:

For example from Federalist 29 (Hamilton):

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes
of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through
military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to
the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

NavyDoc
You honestly do not think they were confronted with crime, tyranny, oligarchy? The human condition has not changed one iota. They understood and experienced exactly what "we are confronted with today" and they understood that disarming law abiding citizens was not a solution. Honestly, what situation do you think is unique now that was never before seen in human history?

Where did I say anything about they didn't have to deal with crime?

And oh my god ... I'm swear I'm going to start a drinking game called "Flood the Tyrant" ... me and my buddies are going to read threads on ATS and every time we see a version of the word "tyrant" we're all going to drink. I figure we'll be in the floor in five or ten minutes.

How about faced with weapons that fire 800 rounds a minute versus 2? Or fire at body rending velocities with bullet technologies that shred flesh and bone? Oh no, that makes no difference at all does it?

Your "reasonable accommodations" are ignoring the constitution and are in violation of civil liberties. Are government designated "free speech zones" a "reasonable accommodation" or an infringement? Does NSA violation of 4th Amendment rights a "reasonable accommodation" or an infringement? What you consider a "reasonable accommodation" (and who gets to determine what is reasonable? You? Obama? Nixon? I'm sure Nixon thought Watergate was "reasonable" when he did it.)

No, they're not. Civil liberties are maintained in tandem with the general welfare. You tend to speak in absolutes.

... and now you're merely tossing in red herring from any direction. The People make the decisions about what is reasonable via their Representatives, and if that doesn't work, we send other Representatives. The standard is certainly not set by the small minorities of fringe extremist elements on internet message boards.

Yes, the first amendment is not absolute--when it infringes on the rights of other citizens. You cannot slander another citizen or commit fraud for example. However, you are not gagged or prevented from buying a particular book because of what you might do. You can certainly cry "fire" in a crowded theater if in fact there is fire and you are not gagged before you go into the theater in case you might cry fire. Your "reasonable restrictions" on ownership, unlike "reasonable restrictions" on any other civil liberty, are not based on harming others but because you are (unreasonably) afraid that they might do something. "Might do something" is not logical nor legitimate reason to restrict the civil liberty of another. A machine gun in my safe does absolutely no harm to my neighbor. None at all.

If the machine gun does no harm in your safe, then you don't mind authorities knowing that it's there, right? You don't mind authorities making sure you aren't insane, mentally challenged, or a felon before you purchase the machine gun to keep in your gun safe, surely?

The machine gun may be safe in your safe but what happens when it isn't? What happens when your neighbor isn't as careful with his machine gun and leaves it out on the porch, and some neighborhood kids pick it up and go play "Halo For Real" down at the Church Day Care? Oh, what fun that is, huh? Remember, kids kill kids, not machine guns.

No, I can't predict the future, and neither can you. But fewer machine guns mean fewer chances that machine guns will be misused.

Aside from that, nothing in the Constitution says you can have a machine gun. Sorry, it just doesn't.

stormson

Kangaruex4Ewe

Skymon612

Obama has repeatedly express support for the Second Amendment. "If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away. Alright?" Obama has said.

If you like your doctor.... you can keep your doctor. If you like your healthcare plan... you can keep your healthcare plan.

I trust him this time though.

edit on 4/7/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

exactly!

he didnt take those things from you, but the insurance companies did.

facts are so pesky.

Yes. The facts are so pesky. You know who else thinks the facts are just too damn pesky??

That's right! Obama does. That is why he is going back now and saying "I did say you could keep your plan if you like your plan and I did say that you could keep your doctor if you like you are doctor. WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.... I MISSPOKE.... I know what I told you... BUT..."

I know when he's back peddling he is really wishing those pesky facts didn't keep popping up making him look like a bold faced liar.

He shouldn't have made promises he couldn't keep. So yeah... he kind of did take those things away. If playing musical chairs with the blame game helps you sleep at night, have at it. Those pesky facts are still facts.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


... and honestly, you don't see that the insurance companies saw the opportunity to make small changes in the plans that would invalidate them and cause them to be cancelled under the ACA regulations merely to provide grist for the mill?

I don't know about you and your experiences with insurance companies, but I know that they will screw us anyway they can any time they can as many times as they can and then expect us to keep paying for it.

Gryphon66
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

... and honestly, you don't see that the insurance companies saw the opportunity to make small changes in the plans that would invalidate them and cause them to be cancelled under the ACA regulations merely to provide grist for the mill?

I don't know about you and your experiences with insurance companies, but I know that they will screw us anyway they can any time they can as many times as they can and then expect us to keep paying for it.

They absolutely saw opportunity. That opportunity would not have been there if the government didn't see fit to crap it up more than it was previously.

I know how the insurance companies screw people. I'm almost 40 with aging parents... I have seen all too well lately how they operate. That's THE MAIN REASON government should not have been allowed to do what they did concerning Obamacare. The government screws you just as badly as the insurance companies do and together they will rip a hole in the space/time continuum with all the f-up's they can create jointly.

"We're from the government and we're here to help" should send people running at this point. Now they have their filthy little hands in an industry that makes life and death decisions every day for folks all over the world (deciding if you are worth the care, deciding if they will pay for medicines that can prolong life, etc.)

It's not a good mix IMO.

You know, he's bought up millions of rounds of ammo for all these various different agencies and raided and harassed bullet manufacturers and their suppliers so you have to be kidding, right? He's had conceal carry lists published in local newspapers and people harassed over that. He's had anti-gun people frothing at the mouth about how gun owners should be killed and executed. Now he's got a bunch of snipers stationed in the mountains to shoot people over some guys cattle in the desert. Those snipers are going to be trained on you one of these days you fool. You need to stop braying about your party and having to feel so right all the time you have to ignore all the warnings.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


Granted.

How would you fix the out-of-control insurance-healthcare fiasco in this country?

A night's stay in the hospital should not cost $10,000.

An aspirin should not cost $100.

Premiums cannot go up 100% every single year.

Everything cannot be excluded as a pre-existing condition.

Basic health care should not be out of the affordability range of normal working people.

If not the government, who? Who's going to fix it?

(I'm in my 40s as well. So we grew up in the same world)

It's actually the government that has made medical care so expensive. They want it expensive because it makes the GDP look good. So much of our GDP is medical spending. The hospitals are in cahoots with the government. They call themselves non-profits. With the government's blessing of course (in return for campaign contributions). Look, the WH doesn't care about the peasants.

smackdog
It's actually the government that has made medical care so expensive. They want it expensive because it makes the GDP look good. So much of our GDP is medical spending. The hospitals are in cahoots with the government. They call themselves non-profits. With the government's blessing of course (in return for campaign contributions). Look, the WH doesn't care about the peasants.

I think we're off topic here unless the OP is really about a misperception of actions of the Obama administration (for example the reputation of being "gun grabbers" when there's no evidence to that effect).

In that light, do you think the "cahoot-ion" started with Obama or has it been going on for a while?

Gryphon66

And oh my god ... I'm swear I'm going to start a drinking game called "Flood the Tyrant" ... me and my buddies are going to read threads on ATS and every time we see a version of the word "tyrant" we're all going to drink. I figure we'll be in the floor in five or ten minutes.

How about faced with weapons that fire 800 rounds a minute versus 2? Or fire at body rending velocities with bullet technologies that shred flesh and bone? Oh no, that makes no difference at all does it?

edit on 0Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:46:16 -050014p122014466 by Gryphon66 because: Had to be done

LOL. And I think a drinking game where we drink every time a leftist spews the ignorant MSM talking points of baby shredding assault bullets.

You honestly think the founding fathers didn't think guns could kill? That is the whole point of their belief in keeping and bearing arms, so that they could kill the bad guy.

People who know nothing about firearms always confuse cyclic rate with rate of fire. A cyclic rate of 800 rounds per minute means that the chambering and extraction cycle takes 1/800 of a minute. An M-16 has a cyclic rate of 600 RPM. You cannot shoot it 600 rounds per minute even if you somehow hooked it up to a belt of ammo--the barrel would melt.

You do realize that "assault weapon" ammo is actually under powered compared to common hunting ammo right? Less weight, less kinetic, energy, less range.

You also do realize that a 60 caliber musket ball also could "rend flesh" and "shatter bone," right? They were well aware that horrific wounds occurred in war and from rifles and THEY STILL WANTED CITIZENS TO OWN THEM. If fact, given modern medicine, modern rifles are less deadly than muskets. You get shot with a musket at that time, your chance of survival was much lower. SO yes, they knew that guns kill and main and still they wanted citizens to be armed. Nice emotional argument, BTW. A bit typical of the left.

I 've noticed a trend against anti gun people. This trend is that they are very ignorant of the very objects they wish to ban. They do not understand how they work, what their limitations are, how to use them, how they are used, how they are maintained, their history--they know absolutely nothing outside of what they see on TV and mindlessly parrot the same leftist talking points. Next, are you going to lecture me on "the shoulder thing that goes up?"




Anti-gun people are just like anti-gay people. They spout ignorant things that are untrue but they believe them out of fear. I've heard "all gays are pedophiles" and "all gays get off on eating feces." Obviously this shows how ignorant and irrational they are on the subject of gays. Ditto anti-gun people on the subject of guns.

Gryphon66
No, they're not. Civil liberties are maintained in tandem with the general welfare.

That's not true. The general welfare is balanced in the face of civil liberties. If we decide your 4th amendment rights are not applicable because of "general welfare" then you agree that your 4th amendment rights should be invalid? This was the reasoning behind the patriot act. I assume you agree with the patriot act then? Since the 4th amendment had to be infringed a little for the general welfare? There are many very harmful ideas in books. Would you ban books for the general welfare? I find it interesting how eager people are to infringe upon the rights of their fellow man but say "well that's different" when someone wants to infringe upon their rights.

Gryphon66
If the machine gun does no harm in your safe, then you don't mind authorities knowing that it's there, right? You don't mind authorities making sure you aren't insane, mentally challenged, or a felon before you purchase the machine gun to keep in your gun safe, surely?

The machine gun may be safe in your safe but what happens when it isn't? What happens when your neighbor isn't as careful with his machine gun and leaves it out on the porch, and some neighborhood kids pick it up and go play "Halo For Real" down at the Church Day Care? Oh, what fun that is, huh? Remember, kids kill kids, not machine guns.

No, I can't predict the future, and neither can you. But fewer machine guns mean fewer chances that machine guns will be misused.

So, instead of punishing the few people for negligent and criminal acts, you restrict the freedoms of everyone? My, how progressive of you. I assume you want to ban bleach, swimming pools, and cars since those items cause more death of children in the US than "assault weapons" and machine guns--all long arms for that matter--combined. How about this? Punish negligence and criminal act severely and leave safe, law abiding people alone.

LOL. Leave it to a leftist to bring up "do it for the cheeeeldrun." Again with the emotional arguments.

Gryphon66
Aside from that, nothing in the Constitution says you can have a machine gun. Sorry, it just doesn't.

This demonstrates that you don't understand how the Constitution works. Let me help:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Know what that means? It means that unless something is specifically prohibited by the Constitution, you can do it--even if it is not mentioned. Of course I have a Constitutional right to the machine guns I do own right now (I bet that bit of information gave you a seizure) as they are "arms" as defined by the second amendment. Considering it was perfectly legal for a private citizen to own a cannon (if he could afford one) at the time and you could mail order a full auto Thompson SMG from Sears up until 1934, I'd say that FA firearms were also accepted as protected under the second for the bulk of our nation's history as well as the founding.

i actually disagree with your entire post, but these points below really irked me...so much so, that i felt the need to speak up....it's not my place to answer for the doc..but as i said, these points bothered me so much, i had to say something..

sorry, doc...

Gryphon66
If the machine gun does no harm in your safe, then you don't mind authorities knowing that it's there, right?

i love this argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide"..it is so asinine....

what about "it's none of your buisness"?

it's not the role of the federal government to see everything, know everything, and punish everything....that's the role of a dictatorship, or some kind of imperialist, fascist, authoritarian, or totalitarian regime....

unless i'm doing something wrong, it's none of anyone's business what i have in my safe...4th amendment's a bitch, ain't it?

The machine gun may be safe in your safe but what happens when it isn't? What happens when your neighbor isn't as careful with his machine gun and leaves it out on the porch, and some neighborhood kids pick it up and go play "Halo For Real" down at the Church Day Care? Oh, what fun that is, huh? Remember, kids kill kids, not machine guns.

hyperbole. yeah, sure, let's start taking things away from people, because of what they, or someone else MIGHT do....let's start charging people with crimes they haven't committed, or are unlikely to ever commit....sure, makes perfect sense....how much more liberty would you have people sacrifice, to chase the mirage of total safety?

No, I can't predict the future, and neither can you. But fewer machine guns mean fewer chances that machine guns will be misused.

you obviously have no idea how many actual "machine guns" are in private hands in america, or how difficult it is to obtain one.....but hey, let's just make up some more misinformed assertions, because that's always a winning strategy, AMIRITE?

Aside from that, nothing in the Constitution says you can have a machine gun. Sorry, it just doesn't.

true...but it also doesn't say we CAN'T have one...now, i know, you're one of those people who thinks the founders were simpletons, who didn't think technology would advance past the levels it was at when the constitution was written...

"arms" is non-specific...it doesn't mean "musket"...it means "arms", meaning whatever is in common use. muskets were the standard military arms for that period, these days, it's rifles based on the AR-15 platform....facts is facts, man...

just because you're scared of them, and have no use for them, doesn't mean nobody else should have them, or that nobody else has a use for them.....if you don't have a need, or a desire to own a gun, then don't own one...but don't presume to tell other people what they do or don't need, based on your own personal hangups....that's a much deeper psychosis, completely unconnected to guns...

Gryphon66
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

 

... and honestly, you don't see that the insurance companies saw the opportunity to make small changes in the plans that would invalidate them and cause them to be cancelled under the ACA regulations merely to provide grist for the mill?

I don't know about you and your experiences with insurance companies, but I know that they will screw us anyway they can any time they can as many times as they can and then expect us to keep paying for it.

and before the ACA, we had the option to say "f**k you", and either take our business elsewhere, or pay medical expenses out of pocket....now, we don't...unless we want to have the IRS literally rob us, for not buying a product...

reply to post by NavyDoc


i'd play that drinking game...but after about 5 minutes, i'd be so drunk, the cops would shoot me for holding a garden hose...

then i couldn't play anymore... -sadfais-

Gryphon66

No, I can't predict the future, and neither can you. But fewer machine guns mean fewer chances that machine guns will be misused.

Aside from that, nothing in the Constitution says you can have a machine gun. Sorry, it just doesn't.

edit on 0Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:46:16 -050014p122014466 by Gryphon66 because: Had to be done

Nothing in the constitution says I can have a machinegun, but wheres the part that says I cant? I don't get how so many people see "right to bare arms" and think that somehow doesn't mean we can own a firearm.

Obamas two laws are crap. They shouldn't have to make a separate law for every little thing. Oh now I can have a gun in a state park, yay. Are they going to start making laws for each room in someones house? Is it legal for me to take a gun into my bathroom? I haven't seen a law yet telling me it is so I guess I better not risk it.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I stated that the 2nd was about killing. Don't be specious, or pedantic for that matter to suggest that I don't understand that the 18th century comprehended life and death; you're a better thinker and debater than that. And not once have I said anything about "baby shredding assault bullets" so you're merely spewing rightist/rabid gun-nut propaganda if you assign that to me again.

I believe in your right to own as many weapons as you want. I don't think it's an unconstitutional onus upon you to register their purchase or to undergo a background check. I don't want to "grab" the guns you have or anyone elses.

I'm neither a "progressive" nor a pure "liberal" so stop the silly pigeonholing.

Whatever the specifics of the mechanics (and I will defer to your obviously greater knowledge and understanding of ballistics and firearms mechanics than mine) ... I want you to say to me that there is no appreciable difference in the level of lethality between a Brown Bess musket and an AK-47 with multiple clips or between a flintlock pistol and a 9MM Glock with multiple clips.

And if you can't, I want you to acknowledge that these weapons in the hands of anyone present an exponentially greater danger to the public-at-large than any small arms that the Founders could have imagined at the time.

And then, all I'm asking is if you think that these men *might* have been in favor of additional laws, regulations and rules for the purchase and carry of these weapons, given the infinitely greater lethality difference from anything they knew (short of grape shot or chain shot in cannon).

And ... really, do you think there are only two kinds of people, only two possible positions on the issues? Because I don't agree with a radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment I'm "anti-gun" ... see that's what REALLY doesn't work for me. Because then you get to just paste in a whole sermon of non-applicable rhetoric. On the other hand, I'm certainly not in "the 2nd amendment says I can do whatever I want with my guns" crowd ... but there's not just two groups "us and them" except in the minds of the overly paranoid, and Doc, even though we've butted heads regularly I don't think you're paranoid.

Am I wrong?

You're needlessly reducing the question of general welfare versus civil rights to vague and mostly empty rhetoric. You know as well as I do that the question of your rights versus my rights or your welfare versus my rights or the welfare of the State or the People of the State versus my rights or the rights of the State versus the rights of another State ... are intricate and complicated matters and oversimplifying them insults both our intellects.

You wouldn't get a moment's argument from me about the toxicity of the Patriot Act aside from noting that was a neocon's dream.

What do you want to use a machine gun for? What possible need do you have for it? How does whatever that possible need or want that you might have for a machine gun outweigh what "bad people" can do when machine guns come into their hands?

I'm not worried about people like you Doc. You have have tactical nukes for all I care, in fact, truth to tell, I'm glad guys like you are armed.

I'm worried about the quiet librarian across the street that taxidermies puppies and kittens and has started watching the playground ...

Daedalus
i actually disagree with your entire post

Yeah, I very rarely read anything you write that holds any value or interest for me either.

Daedalus
i love this argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide"..it is so asinine....

what about "it's none of your buisness"?

You know, you've actually got a good point there. It's not any of the People's business when the machine gun is sitting in your private home in your safe. It's the People's business when you purchase it, because fully automatic weapons/machine guns represent a level of lethality that the People have decided require additional regulation, and yes, We the People do have a right to decide that collectively and We have done so. I was answering a specific question placed in a specific way.

Daedalus
it's not the role of the federal government to see everything, know everything, and punish everything....that's the role of a dictatorship, or some kind of imperialist, fascist, authoritarian, or totalitarian regime....

Did you use the world "hyperbole" somewhere? You're merely blurting buzzwords here.

Daedalus
unless i'm doing something wrong, it's none of anyone's business what i have in my safe...4th amendment's a bitch, ain't it?

That's actually kind of a fun logic puzzle, innit, or freshman physics problem ... not unlike Schrodingers Cat eh? See above for what I think about what you have in your safe.

Daedalus
hyperbole. yeah, sure, let's start taking things away from people, because of what they, or someone else MIGHT do....let's start charging people with crimes they haven't committed, or are unlikely to ever commit....sure, makes perfect sense....how much more liberty would you have people sacrifice, to chase the mirage of total safety?

Never said a word about taking your toys away. Good god that's all you folks hear isn't it? I'm in favor of your 2nd amendment rights friend, I think you should have as many guns as you can buy, hold, store, or insert into various body cavities. Neither I nor anyone else here that I've read are in favor of "taking your guns."

Daedalus
you obviously have no idea how many actual "machine guns" are in private hands in america, or how difficult it is to obtain one.....but hey, let's just make up some more misinformed assertions, because that's always a winning strategy, AMIRITE?

You're not making a point here worth responding to.

Daedalus
true...but it also doesn't say we CAN'T have one...now, i know, you're one of those people who thinks the founders were simpletons, who didn't think technology would advance past the levels it was at when the constitution was written...

Nope, but the laws that have been passed under the authority of the Constitution and the several States do. On the contrary, I am well aware of the absolute genius of many of the men we call the Founders. I also know that they didn't mean to imply that the "right to keep and bear arms" meant that you can do whatever you want whenever you want vis a vis "firearms" and quibble about the meaning of the word "infringe" or the word "militia."

Daedalus
just because you're scared of them, and have no use for them, doesn't mean nobody else should have them, or that nobody else has a use for them.....if you don't have a need, or a desire to own a gun, then don't own one...but don't presume to tell other people what they do or don't need, based on your own personal hangups....that's a much deeper psychosis, completely unconnected to guns...

I shouldn't tell you what you do or don't need, but you're free to tell me what I'm afraid of and psychoanalyze me? LOL What a hypocrite. You won't find anywhere here that I've argued to take your guns away from you or anyone elses away from them. I support gun rights, but I do not support the ludicrous idea that the right to bear arms means that you or anyone else should be able to have any kind of weapon and carry it anywhere you want any time you want merely because you want to. You do not live in some isolated field somewhere, you live in society. Your choices affect all of us. You have rights, we have rights too.

There's a balance. You have your rights; we have ours. I don't want to deny yours, but I think you do want to deny ours, because you've been programmed not to compromise. You spit out the same tired rhetoric whenever your trigger words are used (like that?). Sad really.

Gryphon66
Yeah, I very rarely read anything you write that holds any value or interest for me either.

well, as long as we're being honest...i appreciate that..

Daedalus
You know, you've actually got a good point there.

why, thank you....not so intellectually useless, after all, am i?

It's not any of the People's business when the machine gun is sitting in your private home in your safe.

indeed.

It's the People's business when you purchase it

no it isn't. it's no more anyone's business when i buy a gun, as it is when i buy a car, or a phone, or a house, or anything else...

because fully automatic weapons/machine guns represent a level of lethality that the People have decided require additional regulation, and yes, We the People do have a right to decide that collectively and We have done so.

incorrect. unless it's put to a public referendum, it cannot be said that what our "representatives" come up with, is truly representative of the collective will of "we, the people"..

I was answering a specific question placed in a specific way.

fair enough.

Did you use the world "hyperbole" somewhere? You're merely blurting buzzwords here.

no i'm not. it is a statement of fact...just because those words are often overused in an inappropriately reactionary way, does not change their meaning..

That's actually kind of a fun logic puzzle, innit, or freshman physics problem ... not unlike Schrodingers Cat eh? See above for what I think about what you have in your safe.

no, it's not a fun logic puzzle, it's a statement of fact.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

if there's no search, there is know knowledge of what one has in one's home. ergo, you won't know if you haven't looked, or i haven't told you. the only way to look legally, is with a warrant, and you can't get one of those unless there is probable cause, which usually means reasonable belief that a crime has been committed...

in other words, unless i've done something wrong, what i have in my home is nobody's business but mine..

Never said a word about taking your toys away. Good god that's all you folks hear isn't it? I'm in favor of your 2nd amendment rights friend, I think you should have as many guns as you can buy, hold, store, or insert into various body cavities. Neither I nor anyone else here that I've read are in favor of "taking your guns."

actually, you did speak of taking guns away, or severely limiting them...but, i didn't entirely notice that you seem to be playing "devil's advocate" on the issue...for you, this discussion is more of an intellectual exercise, and i can completely appreciate that. i am sorry i misread you.

You're not making a point here worth responding to.

i actually am....it's a common tactic of the anti-gun crowd, to rail on about "machine guns", when there are, in actuality, very few machine guns in private hands, and the are very difficult to obtain.

this is mostly a result of the MSM constantly showing stock footage of automatic weapons being used, whenever they talk about the evil, scary, black, semi-auto rifles, that uninformed lunatics like Kevin DeLeon, and Diane Fieinstein wanna ban....

Nope, but the laws that have been passed under the authority of the Constitution and the several States do. On the contrary, I am well aware of the absolute genius of many of the men we call the Founders. I also know that they didn't mean to imply that the "right to keep and bear arms" meant that you can do whatever you want whenever you want vis a vis "firearms" and quibble about the meaning of the word "infringe" or the word "militia."

i'm sure they trusted in the american people to exercise sense, and understand that they might not need a rifle to go into town, when a pistol would suffice...BUT, you should have the right to own both, and if you feel you ABSOLUTELY NEED to carry that rifle, you should have that option open to you..

same thing here...you don't really need to carry a rifle when you're out and about, when a pistol will do just fine for most any situation you might encounter "in the wild"...

there is no quibbling over the meaning of the words "infringe", or "militia", that i'm aware of....the words have definitions...that is to say they mean what they mean...

what quibbling are you referring to?

I shouldn't tell you what you do or don't need, but you're free to tell me what I'm afraid of and psychoanalyze me? LOL What a hypocrite. You won't find anywhere here that I've argued to take your guns away from you or anyone elses away from them. I support gun rights, but I do not support the ludicrous idea that the right to bear arms means that you or anyone else should be able to have any kind of weapon and carry it anywhere you want any time you want merely because you want to. You do not live in some isolated field somewhere, you live in society. Your choices affect all of us. You have rights, we have rights too.

well, again, as i said earlier, it would appear i may have misread you.

i will say though, what would be the harm in someone safely carrying a rifle, or a pistol, or whatever? as long as they are exercising proper safety practices, there's really no harm, outside of them looking rather silly with a big-ass rifle strapped to themselves, in the middle of a coffee shop...i honestly see no need to carry anything more extreme than a handgun(pistol), while out in the world...but then again, where i live, that's about all i'd think i need....in other places, maybe you SHOULD pack a rifle, who knows?

generally, the people who advocate banning guns, don't know anything about them, don't own any, don't have a desire to own any, don't have a use for them, and believe that because they don't want or need them, that nobody should want or need them....it's a symptom of arrogance, and of being a control freak(a condition completely unrelated to guns, as it can be applied to anything)....as i seem to have misread you(sorry again for that), i take that bit back....

There's a balance. You have your rights; we have ours. I don't want to deny yours, but I think you do want to deny ours, because you've been programmed not to compromise. You spit out the same tired rhetoric whenever your trigger words are used (like that?). Sad really.

you've misread me.

i'm completely ok with compromise....so long as it does not infringe upon my rights.

for instance...i'd be ok with criminals actually being in jail, and the really bad ones being executed.....if they're not out in the world, they're not gonna hurt anyone, with anything, ever again....

i'm ok with people who are mentally f**ked to the point that they can't be trusted with anything more extreme than one-piece pajamas, because they might hurt themselves, or someone else, being locked up 'til doomsday...if they're not in the world, they can't hurt anyone either....

and i'm completely ok with the idea of some kind of mandatory safety and handling training, before you are allowed to purchase a gun....this way, if you screw up, and hurt yourself, or accidentally kill someone, or you go out and kill a bunch of people on purpose, you can't claim you didn't know what you were doing, because it'll be known that you were taught better...

i'm not some kind of pro-gun rhetoric robot..i'm just so tired of hearing all the same idiotic "ban guns because guns" arguments....it's ignorance at it's finest..

i do hope we can have an intelligent dialogue, going forward....you seem quite bright..

I honestly do wish America would have a total ban on weapons, then the rest of the world would be safer.