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

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

and no sooner than i mention idiotic "ban guns because guns" arguments, do i see one...

Daedalus

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

and no sooner than i mention idiotic "ban guns because guns" arguments, do i see one...

Well, to be honest I stopped caring about America and Americans the day they stopped caring about me.

Daedalus
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..

Awww, dang it, now I've actually got to start listening to what you're saying.

I actually really enjoyed reading your response. You were measured and reasonable, perhaps moreso to me than I was to you.

Extremism and absolutism is the problem we face in the US. All or nothing.

pookle

Daedalus

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

and no sooner than i mention idiotic "ban guns because guns" arguments, do i see one...

Well, to be honest I stopped caring about America and Americans the day they stopped caring about me.

then why are you here(in this thread)?

Daedalus

pookle

Daedalus

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

and no sooner than i mention idiotic "ban guns because guns" arguments, do i see one...

Well, to be honest I stopped caring about America and Americans the day they stopped caring about me.

then why are you here(in this thread)?

Poking my nose into other peoples business, same thing America does to ours.

Gryphon66
Awww, dang it, now I've actually got to start listening to what you're saying.

ROFL!

you don't HAVE to..but it would be cool if you did..

I actually really enjoyed reading your response. You were measured and reasonable, perhaps moreso to me than I was to you.

Extremism and absolutism is the problem we face in the US. All or nothing.

agreed. if cooler heads prevailed, this issue would have been put to bed a LONG time ago. and thanks.

pookle
Poking my nose into other peoples business, same thing America does to ours.

Touché.

reply to post by Skymon612


Complete BS. Obama has signed executive orders banning the import of many firearms and also further complicated the NFA transfer process. He is also responsible for one of the largest ammunition shortages in history.

Obama, Holder and all em want the guns plain and simple!

These men operate above the law! When Holder and other fed agencies can just ignore contempt of Congress charges we no longer have a government which answers to the people. When secret police rule the day and our every move and every word we speak is recorded and monitored. When the president can use signing powers to bypass Congress and effect or rewrite laws. We no longer have a representative democracy but rather live in Despotism.

You can have mine when you pry em from my cold dead hands!

The charters of freedom with which this country was founded demand action, and more and more people ready for s showdown daily. Just look at the literal flood of people heading to Nevada to protect cows!

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Shall not be infringed, friend!

Gryphon66
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 ...

edit on 15Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:46:22 -050014p032014466 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

Nonsense. You are the one who started with the laughable rhetoric. You said this:

Or fire at body rending velocities with bullet technologies that shred flesh and bone? Oh no, that makes no difference at all does it?

As if to imply that the FF did not envision lethality in firearms. That is patently untrue. If you don't want such "nonsense" ascribed to you, stop USING it.

You don't think registration is infringement? By the same token would you thing registration of books infringement? Who you assemble with? Your religion? If you find one restriction of a civil liberty an infringement, then you must, logically, find another restriction of a civil liberty infringement.

You parrot leftist talking points, so how else to describe your opinion? I've yet to see evidence of individual thoughts.

Again with the leftist talking points. (and you say you think for yourself). First of all they are not "clips", they are magazines. Again an illustration that you do not understand the subject matter. Your point is meaningless. The weapons that the FF wanted citizens to have were the best and baddest that were around. They killed at a much higher rate than modern weapons (due to advances in medical technology). They killed and maimed and the FF understood that more efficient weapons would come around just as they saw that their weapons were more efficient that earlier times. Their point was that the government should not have a monopoly on the means of coercion and the ultimate coercion is killing. They believed that the common citizen should be able to use the same arms as the police so that the police would never have an advantage on the citizen.

I won't admit that these arms are a "greater danger to the general public than imagined" because they are not. Weapons kill. Weapons in the hands of the oligarch kill at a much higher rate. Only when the balance of power between the state and the citizen is close do you not have genocide, dictatorship, and slavery. The most people killed in the 20th century were killed at the hands of their own governments--Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro. At the time of the founding, the Brown Bess was a horrible weapon, capable of unheard of rates of fire. Cannon could kill a hundred men with a single shot if loaded with canister, but they were all permitted to be owned by private citizens. Why? Because they recognized the undeniable truth that in order for a free society to exist, the state must not have a monopoly on the means of coercion.

Those men would not be in favor of additional laws because they were not. A private citizen could own all of the arms they wanted, up and including cannon. They didn't restrict ANYTHING then, so it is stupid to assume they'd restrict anything now.

It does not matter why I have a machine gun (several actually, silencers too) or what I do with it, or if they never leave the safe because they are worth tens of thousands of dollars each. It does not matter why I have a Koran on my shelf or if I read it or not. It does not matter if I have a printing press and if I use it to make political pamphlets or print out the kid's homework. As long as I do not harm my neighbor, it is not your nor the government's business why I have these things. I have them because I am a free man and I should not be restricted because of what someone is afraid of what I MIGHT do. Philip K. Dick's office of pre-crime is a symbol of a dystopian society for very obvious reasons.

I'm worried about he guy with a Che T-shirt who starts buying ammonia and bleach. How far are you going to go to restrict the liberty of your fellow citizens because you are afraid of what might happen rather than dealing with what actually happens?

Long arms are very rarely used in crime, less than 800 in the last year. MSNBC/ leftist hysteria aside, why regulate or restrict something that causes less death and injury that bottles of bleach under the counter or swimming pools? Your "for the general welfare" is not based on the "general welfare" but rather ignorant hysteria and media driven propaganda. As for the "general welfare" would you accept restrictions on your right to free speech based on the claimed "general welfare, "or would you find it an infringement of your rights?

As Disreali said," Necessity is the clarion call of the tyrant." Anti-gay people claim the same "general welfare" excuse to ban gay marriage. I say that they should mind their own business. What about you?

Daedalus
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...

No reason to apologize, you nailed it. Well said.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You're simply misstating what I'm saying and misrepresenting what I'm sure you know is true.

A musket ball fired by a musket loader does damage to the human body, given. I know that. The Founders knew that, and I know they knew it. That's not only obvious, I never implied otherwise, IN FACT, I clearly stated the opposite.

A musket ball does not do the same kind of damage as a modern bullet fired from any kind of modern weapon, much less, hollow-point bullets, heavy grain bullets, et. al. You know that, I know that, so stop pretending its the same thing. It's like saying a torch and a flame-thrower are the same, or a sword and a chain-saw.

Leftist-schmeftist. What talking points are you using? NRA-anarcho-fascist-survivalist-nutjob? You haven't come up with one original contribution in the entire conversation. You've got two songs 1) I can have any gun I want and you can't stop me, nyah-nyah and 2) You're a socialist-leftist-communist-pinko-gun-grabber. It doesn't matter what anyone says, or what reasonable counterpoints they raise, you can only respond on two channels because that's all you've got. Your vocabulary and sentence structure is a bit more complex than the average Alex Jones/Glenn Beck parrot but you still haven't moved any further in your thinking.

The common American citizens owned cannon? LOL. Yeah, you're a real historian, Doc.

How far do your rights extend? Exactly as far as they start harming the rest of us, exactly that far, and no fricking further.

A certain ilk wants to expand its own selfish and short-sighted aggrandized pettiness to the rest of us, the American people, who by the by are overwhelmingly in every poll content to have the current gun control laws enforced. Honestly, these neo-con, faux-patriots defile the word liberty when it is co-opted to justify small-minded needs to have just exactly the kinds of toys to play with and fantasize about overthrowing governments with, regardless of the fact of what those toys can do in the hands of the criminal, the insane and other truly bad people for whom taking action is not just words on an internet message board.

What a waste of time this is.

ZeroFurrbone
I hope everyone that has gun go to jail! Criminals included. The more guns people have , the more crime there is. Isnt that why NY has high crime rate?

For everyone else that aprove guns , I hope everyone have Bazookas in their houses and uses them. Laws are made by people that want the laws to help them , not the people. Guns shouldnt exist in the first place. Less weapons , less death. No Weapons No War.

I mean no offense personally, however you're completely wrong on all accounts. Take a look at Chicago recently for example: Chicago Murder Rate Hits 56 Year Low After State Enacts Concealed Carry Law

Now compare this with New York's murder rate which is reportedly on a decline since 1990. en.wikipedia.org... However, it is not attributed to a lack of firearms but different policing strategies.

In any rate, if someone was about to do harm to me or my family, I'd rather be able to handle it myself than let unthinkable events unfold until the police eventually arrive which is usually too late.

reply to post by Gryphon66



Our founding fathers were some pretty intelligent people. I would give them more credit than thinking they would have no idea that technology and firepower would advance anymore beyond muskets. The entire point didn't revolve around the weapons we use(d), but the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Also, I find it amusing OP posts once then disappears. Please provide supporting material or at least attempt to debate and provide rebuttal for these opposing views.

reply to post by Kevinquisitor


Yes, it is really odd that real life keeps anyone away from ATS for any length of time, isn't it?

Kevin, I'm not certain what references, citations, backup, corroborating evidence, you're requesting from me, or for what assertions, claims, expressions, thoughts, opinions or claims, but in the spirit of honest communication, I'll give you an overview of what *I* am claiming here and we can go from there.

The men we refer to as "the Founders" were by and large highly intelligent, well educated and talented thinkers who were effectively living in the 19th Century. Of course they were aware that weapons technology had changed over time. And they definitely believed that the individual ownership of a firearm (or firearms) was an integral part of preserving a parity of political power between the Federal, State, and Local Governments. In their world at the time, the idea of a US "standing army" was anathema. Standing armies were the tools of tyranny. Citizen-soldiers serving in a State militia, in their view, offered a check on the ever-present possibility that the newly-forged Federal government as a centralized political power would create a standing army of its own and try to impose its will on the States or the People (as the Crown (and the Parliament) had done in England).

There was also an element of class freedom, because the much-touted long-standing right to bear arms in England was directly connected to the right to hunt game on the land which was a function of social class. Remember, at this time, free-range game was an important food source. Only certain social classes were allowed to have firearms.

So, yes, 2A intends to protect the right of American citizens to hold firearms. It cannot be said to limit the need of government (usually at the State level) to proscribe some limitations on the kind of arms available, the means of purchase, etc.

The interpretation of 2A as representing an "all or nothing" right tracks to the 1970s and the efforts of the NRA and the gun lobby.

I don't want to take anyone's guns away from them and I don't think there's any danger of that in the near future.

There are 300 million guns in the hands of the people; there are 4 million guns in the hands of law enforcement and the military. The Second is not in danger.

I think there are some reasonable limits on what kinds of guns are available. I don't think weapons registration or concealed carry permits are any more onerous than registering a vehicle or having a drivers licence. I think the danger that automatic weapons represent to the general public outweighs, in general, the right of any individual to own one, but I do realize that is my opinion only.

President Obama is very unpopular among a certain segment of the population who have demonized everything about him and his administration. I think the facts speak for themselves that neither he, nor his administration are "gun grabbers" and further, that as Presidents go, he's been quite supportive of individual gun rights.

There Kevin. Those are MY opinions and understandings and I can provide backup if needed.

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You're simply misstating what I'm saying and misrepresenting what I'm sure you know is true.

A musket ball fired by a musket loader does damage to the human body, given. I know that. The Founders knew that, and I know they knew it. That's not only obvious, I never implied otherwise, IN FACT, I clearly stated the opposite.

A musket ball does not do the same kind of damage as a modern bullet fired from any kind of modern weapon, much less, hollow-point bullets, heavy grain bullets, et. al. You know that, I know that, so stop pretending its the same thing. It's like saying a torch and a flame-thrower are the same, or a sword and a chain-saw.

Leftist-schmeftist. What talking points are you using? NRA-anarcho-fascist-survivalist-nutjob? You haven't come up with one original contribution in the entire conversation. You've got two songs 1) I can have any gun I want and you can't stop me, nyah-nyah and 2) You're a socialist-leftist-communist-pinko-gun-grabber. It doesn't matter what anyone says, or what reasonable counterpoints they raise, you can only respond on two channels because that's all you've got. Your vocabulary and sentence structure is a bit more complex than the average Alex Jones/Glenn Beck parrot but you still haven't moved any further in your thinking.

The common American citizens owned cannon? LOL. Yeah, you're a real historian, Doc.

How far do your rights extend? Exactly as far as they start harming the rest of us, exactly that far, and no fricking further.

A certain ilk wants to expand its own selfish and short-sighted aggrandized pettiness to the rest of us, the American people, who by the by are overwhelmingly in every poll content to have the current gun control laws enforced. Honestly, these neo-con, faux-patriots defile the word liberty when it is co-opted to justify small-minded needs to have just exactly the kinds of toys to play with and fantasize about overthrowing governments with, regardless of the fact of what those toys can do in the hands of the criminal, the insane and other truly bad people for whom taking action is not just words on an internet message board.

What a waste of time this is.

Yeah, I am a real historian. I didn't say "the common citizen owned cannon." I said that many, who could afford them, did. This is a historical fact.

What do you know the damage of a 9mm vs a musket ball? You've already demonstrated a severe level of ignorance of the subject matter. Now are you going to tell me about trauma? How precious. What's a "heavy grain" bullet? Is that like "that shoulder thing that goes up?" If you mean a heavy bullet, 60 caliber musket balls were much heavier than modern bullets. What is, pray tell, the difference in trauma caused by a 400 grain musket ball going at 900 fps compared to a 147 grain 9mm going at 1400 fps? What wounds do you, in your multitudes of trauma experience see in either?

No, you are wrong with the "Alex Jones" crap. I have put out a very clear and logical set of points using history and the law and the facts of firearms--things which you lack terribly. I have no problem with a criminal who misuses their second amendment rights being punished and punished severely. Where you and I differ, is that you want to control civil rights that you find "icky." Would you agree to register your typewriter, if you still used one to communicate? Rights are rights and should not be abridged unless they affect someone else. Simply owning a gun, no matter how abhorrent that is to you, hurts no one. Waving one about and shooting into the air, does put others in danger and should be punished. Unlike yourself, I'd rather restrict people because they have done something wrong, not because they might do something wrong.

That's right. My rights extend only as far until they hurt another citizen. That is completely "fricking" correct. So how about leave me alone until I actually hurt someone? Only an idiot thinks a gun sitting in a safe or on a mantle or in a case in someone's home harms anyone.

Yeah, and certain selfish, ignorant, faux-concerned for the children and public safety, want t push their statist views and control issues on to the rest of us.

Here's the thing. I don't want to push anything on you at all. Don't like guns? Don't own one. Don't like abortion? don't get one. Don't like porn? Don't watch it. You are utterly wrong--the only side that wants to push their will on their fellow man is YOU and your ilk. The people on my side of this issue just want to be left alone and in peace. It is moronic to pretend that my simply owning a gun, of any sort, is a threat to you or infringes on your rights at all. If I do something with a gun that harms you, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply being irrational.

Of course I write well. I've degrees from both the U.S. Naval Academy and the University of Michigan School of Medicine. You cannot pigeonhole gun owners and gun rights proponents as uneducated, paranoid, survivalists. I spent 25 years in federal service. Hardly the definition of an info-wars nut-job.

What was it you said earlier? "Quacks like a duck?" You plastered me with all the "leftist, anti-gun" BS because I have the temerity to disagree with you for more than a couple of rounds. You get it back, and boy, that bitter pill causes quite the reaction, don't it Doc?

Physician, heal thyself.

But, peace. Peace. We can trade counter insults all day long. I don't think I've ever directly insulted your intellect, as you've done now on several occasions. I don't really care, as it's a cheap shot common to internet message boards, but you're not "playing the ball." I give a #### what your estimate of my abilities are. You're words on a screen to me; stray electrons.

Your "expertise" not withstanding, and my relative ignorance not excluded, it is ludicrous to compare the lethality of a musket and modern firearms. You can argue it, but you know it's not true, or if it is, it's only technically true; here's why.

One skilled musket-shooter, one musket, powder, 15 balls and ramrod vs. one skilled shooter, one 9 mm Glock with one 15 round clip. One minute. What's the kill rate on each?

That's my only point in regard to that line of argument. There is a monumental difference in the lethality of modern firearms versus that of the 18th century. I think, given that, those very intelligent men might have phrased the 2A differently.

I have no interest in the animosity our interaction is creating Doc, I really don't.

I don't care about your guns as I've said repeatedly. I'm not coming for them. Neither is anyone else. That's culturally-induced paranoia; as a medical man, I'd think you're familiar with the concept.

The government is not coming for your guns. Neither are the leftists, the peaceniks, the socialists, no one.

Limiting weapons imported into this country, requiring registration (like, you know, vehicles) requiring carry permits (like you know drivers licenses or voter ID cards), keeping them out of the hands of convicted criminals and the mentally ill, restricting the availability of certain ridiculously powered weapons ... DOES NOT restrict your rights to bear arms. Period. Scream about the meaning of "infringe" all day.

We have different opinions. Enjoy yours. I had thought we agreed to avoid interaction, since we can't seem to remain civil.

Good policy, that. Best.

Gryphon66
What was it you said earlier? "Quacks like a duck?" You plastered me with all the "leftist, anti-gun" BS because I have the temerity to disagree with you for more than a couple of rounds. You get it back, and boy, that bitter pill causes quite the reaction, don't it Doc?

Physician, heal thyself.

But, peace. Peace. We can trade counter insults all day long. I don't think I've ever directly insulted your intellect, as you've done now on several occasions. I don't really care, as it's a cheap shot common to internet message boards, but you're not "playing the ball." I give a #### what your estimate of my abilities are. You're words on a screen to me; stray electrons.

Your "expertise" not withstanding, and my relative ignorance not excluded, it is ludicrous to compare the lethality of a musket and modern firearms. You can argue it, but you know it's not true, or if it is, it's only technically true; here's why.

One skilled musket-shooter, one musket, powder, 15 balls and ramrod vs. one skilled shooter, one 9 mm Glock with one 15 round clip. One minute. What's the kill rate on each?

That's my only point in regard to that line of argument. There is a monumental difference in the lethality of modern firearms versus that of the 18th century. I think, given that, those very intelligent men might have phrased the 2A differently.

I have no interest in the animosity our interaction is creating Doc, I really don't.

I don't care about your guns as I've said repeatedly. I'm not coming for them. Neither is anyone else. That's culturally-induced paranoia; as a medical man, I'd think you're familiar with the concept.

The government is not coming for your guns. Neither are the leftists, the peaceniks, the socialists, no one.

Limiting weapons imported into this country, requiring registration (like, you know, vehicles) requiring carry permits (like you know drivers licenses or voter ID cards), keeping them out of the hands of convicted criminals and the mentally ill, restricting the availability of certain ridiculously powered weapons ... DOES NOT restrict your rights to bear arms. Period. Scream about the meaning of "infringe" all day.

We have different opinions. Enjoy yours. I had thought we agreed to avoid interaction, since we can't seem to remain civil.

Good policy, that. Best.

edit on 15Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:34:20 -050014p032014466 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

That is not true and laughable. If you said I could own books, but only certain books, those without "high powered" ideas, would you or would you not consider that an infringement.?

Which "ridiculously powered weapons?" What makes them more powerful than weapons you would allow?

Certainly I have to question your knowledge base. You wish to ban things that you do not understand.

You are being disingenuous. You certainly want to come after my guns. Do you not want to remove my ability to own certain "ridiculously high powered" ones?

For those who aren't repelled by scholarly work, here is an excellent paper by Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm on 17th century English constitutional history. There is an excellent basis to understand the historic relationship between gun ownership and responsibility for participation in the militia that would have informed our Founder's opinions.

The Role of the Militia in the Development of the Englishman's Right to be Armed -- Clarifying the Legacy

ADDED IN EDIT: Be advised, this is basically an ANTI- gun control piece. Dr. Malcolm is a conservative scholar.

But she knows her 17th century history. She argues that, interestingly enough, the Second Amendment is also a citizen control against the militia as well.

Good history though.

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

Fascinating. How does my owning a gun affect you in any way, shape, or form?

NavyDoc

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

Fascinating. How does my owning a gun affect you in any way, shape, or form?

it doesn't, he's a troll-tard....

best to ignore him.