I told you it wouldn't be long.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
semperfoo, do you think i should be allowed to own weapons grade anthrax?


Dumb logic. Would it be fine for me to have a nuclear warhead? Of course not. Your weapon is a WMD. My weapon is a simple rifle that I can control. Can you control anthrax? At least a gun has a safety.

People kill people. not guns..

[edit on 072828p://5802pm by semperfoo]




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
easy, the term arms has evolved beyond the probable reasoning of the architects of the bill of rights

again, i'd like to emphasize that people have the right to bear arms
but only necessary arms


What exactly is the term of arms as depicted by the Founding Fathers, madness?

Who's to say what are necessary arms?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Madness, define assault rifle.

Roper



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

you never were given the right to assault rifle ownership
you were given the highly vague right to bear arms



I want my assault weapons, because I love them. much as one loves a work of art...


no offense, but that is a fairly juvenille sounding reason
you WANT them, but you have no use for them


Your reasoning is completely fallible. Without logic and not to my point at all I am sorry to say...

Of what use is a Picasso?
Why do you own a red car and me a black four wheel drive?
Of what possible use are ties?
Decorative vases, Nick Nacks, Books you have read and flowers...

Because you enjoy them is of course the only logical answer. So you may own them. Why are you denying me the ability to own something I enjoy?

Who are you or anyone else in this world to tell me what I can enjoy and why I enjoy it?

See that is the real problem, the true root of this entire debate. You want to tell others what they can own and what they can not. How can you possibly put yourself or see yourself in that position?

This is a very prevalent mindset in today's society. One person feeling they have the moral high ground to tell others what they can or can not do, own or say. Usually they are the ones that espouse their beliefs in freedom, yet attempt to take our freedom away at every turn...

That is what is happening. You are taking my freedom away from me. Oh yeah, this is all for my own good, for the good of society... But that is how tyrants always start, then before you know it, they tell us the press is bad and must be limited, the internet, heck it is probably better to search houses without warrants too. Once you deny me one right, what is too stop you?

Because it is a right......

Funny how the Founding Fathers never included the right to vote in the constitution or bill of rights, but they considered gun ownership important enough to make it the 2nd Amendment...

Semper

ps. Do you recall your history lessons? What was Hitler's very first official act upon taking control?

He outlawed private gun ownership.....

S



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
See that is the real problem, the true root of this entire debate. You want to tell others what they can own and what they can not. How can you possibly put yourself or see yourself in that position?


no, see, the real problem is every other item you listed off WASN'T DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE

you may say that guns don't kill people, but they sure make it a hell of a lot easier, don't they?




ps. Do you recall your history lessons? What was Hitler's very first official act upon taking control?

He outlawed private gun ownership.....

S


godwin'd

though, you ARE wrong. hitler's first act was calling for hindenberg to dissolve the reichstag, which happened
the second thing he did was have the enabling act passed



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Yes yes yes,

Which enabled him to pass any legislation simply by posting that legislation in the gazette..

The point of my post stands.. It was meant as a rhetorical remark full of essence to substantiate the psychosis of a need for power some feel. This most often is revealed in what I mentioned earlier. The need to tell others what is best for them...

Hitler, though a maniacal, megalomaniac; truly felt he was doing what was best for Germany...

Semper



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

no, see, the real problem is every other item you listed off WASN'T DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE

you may say that guns don't kill people, but they sure make it a hell of a lot easier, don't they?




So you would ban the suits of armor in museums throughout the world?

Antique swords would be confiscated and melted down, some priceless, yet designed to kill...

Your entire argument again falls apart using your own words...

Face it, you don't care about people dieing, if you did, you would more than likely be vehemently supporting the laws we have already to punish criminals that use weapons, no it is apparent all you are obsessed with is firearms. In particular the ones you find ...... what? Wrong? Stupid? Unnecessary?

What ever your choice is, it still begs the question who are you to determine what I call beautiful, what I call artistic, what I desire to own and look at and enjoy...

What gives you or anyone that right?

The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to oppose your view...

Semper



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
"Antique swords would be confiscated"

Your argument is a little spurious I'm not sure there are many criminals who choose to use plate armour and an antique sword to rob a bank.

More to the point, If I was to walk down the street carrying a sword I would be arrested, it's a lethal weapon.

If it's an aesthetic interest in weaponary why not collect unloaded guns ?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Very little crime is actually committed using assault rifles. Most of the murders committed in the US are done with handguns.

But handguns just don't look threatening enough in a photo shoot. So the anti gun politicians always target assualt rifles.

If you want to have an effect on crime, you could impose a 5 year mandatory jail sentance if you caught carrying an unliscensed handgun and you don't have a permit to carry.

Think about that.

I also think that it should be relatively simple for honest citizens to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I also think that if you're legally carring a concealed weapon and you stop a crime in progress that you should get an immediate reward.

That would turn the tide on the criminals.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spuggy
"Antique swords would be confiscated"

Your argument is a little spurious I'm not sure there are many criminals who choose to use plate armour and an antique sword to rob a bank.


I always wanted to build a bunch of flint locks and distribute them to the ghetto kids. How awsome would it be to see a drive by with one of those?

A big 40" barrel coming around the corner and when he fires the whole car would fill with thick smoke.

I would love to see that.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Your argument is a little spurious I'm not sure there are many criminals who choose to use plate armour and an antique sword to rob a bank.

More to the point, If I was to walk down the street carrying a sword I would be arrested, it's a lethal weapon.


**sigh**

Not the point of my post at all...

Oh well

Semper



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
alright semp, i'll meet you half way

we'll allow you to have a weapon you consider beautiful so you can hang it on your wall or whatever you want

but we'll ban the ammo for it
happy?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Do any of you understand why the 2nd was put in to begin with?
The founders understood what tyranny was and knew how to keep it in check.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
We will just have to agree to disagree...

It is apparent now that I can never understand your point of view. It is so vastly foreign to the freedoms I have devoted my life too...

You on the other hand, can not accept my feelings and opinions on weapons, that is becoming more and more self evident...

That I can look upon my rifle and see history, strength of our fathers and courage. That I can hold it and feel something of the pioneer, the soldier in WWII and Korea and Vietnam.

I can go out on my private property that I am currently allowed to own, and shoot my guns, reveling in my freedoms.

I found out in the Marines that I am actually very very good at something. Weapons. And as "tripsy through the daisies" as we would all like life to be, it isn't and men like me are still needed. Weapons are still needed.

So we agree to disagree and I can only hope that there never comes a time in my lifetime when our rights are taken from us.

For once we give up one right, who is to say which one is next. You have clearly stated you can say this one should go...

Semper



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
semperforitis just got my vote for "a way above award" or whatever they're called.

You've hit the nail on the head my friend.


the founding fathers were not stupid...so make no mistake about their reasons behind the second amendment.

It should be our rights to own, use whatever the hell we want. I find it funny that the ppl that blame our government for stripping our freedoms actually want them to strip us from certain ones. Does anyone see the contradiction in any of these statements?

The government has no right to tell me what I can and cant own. Today its guns what will it be tomorrow if they get their way? Did anyone hear a while back about the group that is trying to ban the "N" word in NYC? Im not a racist but the government shouldn't tell me how to speak either. The vast majority of Americans are losing their freedoms because a small group dont agree with certain freedoms. So they must represent the vast majority of americans..

And someone said ban handguns. Why? Criminals will still get their hands on them. It will only make it harder for the general public to get their hands on an affordable weapon that is for protection purposes only. Handguns are much cheaper then assault rifles. What about family's who cant afford an assault rifle but can afford a handgun? So what gives you the right to decide rather or not they can or cant protect their familys with an affordable weapon??

[edit on 022828p://2002pm by semperfoo]


ape

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by ape
has your house ever been broken into? the real world is harsh, people need proper protection especially when people smash up into your house threatening your existance just to obtain a dvd and an xbox.

what about your vehicles? do you own a vehicle? are you a home owner? have you ever been robbed?


yeah, i've had my personal space invaded so that people would take my stuff

but the thing is, did they try to hurt me?




honestly you're a piece of work like no other, I will keep my weapon and if anyone tried to break into my house and threaten my family they will get what's coming to them.


so if someone wants your xbox you'll take their life...

is protection of your property really worth the taking of someone's life?

then there is the deep philosophical issue of whether or not taking the life of another in self defense is sound

but here''s the thing
i don't care about your weapons, keep them
just about whether or not you need an assault rifle
ape, do you need an assault weapon to protect your family?


first of all I was using it as an example, I live in l.a. county people get robbed and shot for lesser things than an xbox out here, my whole point was along with that xbox they will take whatever else they want including my life if they decided.

point is I will have a hand to play in that decision when i'm protecting myself and my family from people who come breaking in with guns, an assault rifle would do the job but unfortunatly I dont own a AR. I dont need you or any other totalertarian telling me what my rights are, it's very easy to see in our constitution.

and yes if someone broke into my house when i'm there with my family I will take a life, i will not leave it up to a complete stranger who enters my house with a weapon to decide if I live or not.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Madness, you have not answered my question. Define assault weapon?

Roper



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Featured Topic

This thread has been selected as an AbovePolitics.com Featured Topic.

Applause worth 1500 PTS Points has been awarded for the original post.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
Madness, you have not answered my question. Define assault weapon?

Roper


i'm just leaving this thread
it's far from a balanced discussion
hell, it basically has degenerated to "ask madness a loaded question then say he knows nothing about gun ownership and make the false assumption that he's against all personal firearm ownership" at one point



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Chicken! I just wanted to know.



Roper





 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join