[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

I love your sarcasm Dana. Petition our overlords for the restoration of our rights. Funny stuff.

Yeah why use the legal and political system system in place to air your grievances when you can just keep moaning and groaning on anonymous internet forums about them

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Yeah why use the legal and political system system in place to air your grievances when you can just keep moaning and groaning on anonymous internet forums about them

Legal system? Seriously? Are you talking about the people that rewrote an unconstitutional law as a tax to make it constitutional? Is that the legal system that you are talking about?

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Yeah why use the legal and political system system in place to air your grievances when you can just keep moaning and groaning on anonymous internet forums about them

What planet are you living on? The costs are prohibitive for the common citizen. Just to retain a lawyer to BEGIN actions would break my account for like... the rest of my life. The legal system you seem to be so proud of is part of the problem as well. There is no justice in this nation except for those that can pay.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm

What planet are you living on? The costs are prohibitive for the common citizen. Just to retain a lawyer to BEGIN actions would break my account for like... the rest of my life. The legal system you seem to be so proud of is part of the problem as well. There is no justice in this nation except for those that can pay.

Point me towards a better legal system, anywhere in the world. It's not perfect by a long shot (few things involving men are) but what system would you prefer?

All some of you want to do is moan and groan about how horrible, evil and corrupt things are but don't seem to want to do anything at all to try and fix the system you say is so broken.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Legal system? Seriously? Are you talking about the people that rewrote an unconstitutional law as a tax to make it constitutional? Is that the legal system that you are talking about?

Ever see those Charlie Brown cartoons where his teacher is talking to the class?

Yeah that is pretty much what I hear when I read your post.....

Your points are just are not coherent...maybe in your mind they are but by time they make it to your fingers they are all over the place.....

And yeah the legal system:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1457138


Seems it works from time to time.....

At least you are not accusing me of wanting to secretly kill innocents in some mass killing anymore because I do not share you exact views on the 2nd A .....

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Ever see those Charlie Brown cartoons where his teacher is talking to the class?

Yeah that is pretty much what I hear when I read your post.....

Your points are just are not coherent...maybe in your mind they are but by time they make it to your fingers they are all over the place.....

At least you are not accusing me of wanting to secretly kill innocents in some mass killing anymore because I do not share you exact views on the 2nd A .....

Just quoting your own words. Maybe it's time to quit listening to the voices in your head.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Just quoting your own words. Maybe it's time to quit listening to the voices in your head.

Nice effective bone cutting response, I guess I know where I stand now


Honestly you can have the last word when you respond to this post, I am done with responding to your incoherent babble. You win.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Thru the interpretation of the 2nd A.

1. The meaning of "a well regulated militia" (regulated by who?, are only militia members protected?)

State's have their own "malita" or gaurd. New Mexico has them, Texas has them. They are well regulated in that they are uniformed, have a ranking sytem, and their own armories of "scary NFA things".

2. The meaning of "Arms" (what is covered in the meaning and what is not)

Arms means weapons. The kind the folks had durring this period was military grade.

3. The meaning of "Infringed" can even be viewed as any "violation" of the right or only past a certain point of "violation" of the right.

Sure you can eat pizza, but only the end crusts, with no topings, sauce, or cheese. I haven't infringed on your ability to enjoy pizza have I? Because, technically I left you the crust ends after I was done.

The very reasons this thing has been in debate for decades by so many.

I guess for the permanently baffled who don't undertand history and have to move their mouth when they read.

Not gonna be settled here, or anywhere else. It will be a ongoing debate IMO. With scholars, experts and passionate laymen on both sides. Of course I am a huge anti gun guy for even bringing this stuff up I guess?

No, politicians with agendas. Why do you think it is hotly contested who gets to place justices? Because, they intepret based on their own political agendas and the Constitution be damned.

[dogmower]

does anyone on this post realize that a fully automatic weapon, by and large, is much less effective than a semi-automatic one? every weapons expert carries that same opinion. when the government decided on extreme regulation of full auto weapons, remember that decision was made as a knee-jerk reaction to the crimes of the day, Capone, et. al., and not made by experts. i think a reasonable devision line between a machine gun and a grenade can be made without invoking the "slippery slope" argument. what say others?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by dogmower

does anyone on this post realize that a fully automatic weapon, by and large, is much less effective than a semi-automatic one? every weapons expert carries that same opinion. when the government decided on extreme regulation of full auto weapons, remember that decision was made as a knee-jerk reaction to the crimes of the day, Capone, et. al., and not made by experts. i think a reasonable devision line between a machine gun and a grenade can be made without invoking the "slippery slope" argument. what say others?

I would agree to there is indeed a line between a FA AR15 and a grenade. It is a point to start a debate IMO.

[nmstew]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Sure you can eat pizza, but only the end crusts, with no topings, sauce, or cheese. I haven't infringed on your ability to enjoy pizza have I? Because, technically I left you the crust ends after I was done.

This is an interesting analogy. The more I think about it, the more I love it!

[.45 Combat]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

No offense but that is way to simplistic. The weapons systems of then are not the weapon system of now. Drive down to the local megamart store, look around and tell me you want all of those folks with free access to some RPG7s, SA7s, maybe a surplus T-60, or some nice chemical weapions...or how about your neighbor storing a half dozen 500lb bombs in his garage?

Also the militia of the 1700s were on par with the military arms of the day as the musket and cannon were much more basic weapons than today. That type of balance between the civilian and military of today is simple not achievable. Using it as a point of debate is simply outdated IMO.

Some people own and fly vintage aircraft, such P-51's, P-38's etc., not to mention B-25 bombers and the like. Any strafing going on in the news.

However, there are household chemicals, that can be used in making explosives. If your intentions are to kill, you'll find a way.

We need to protect our selfs against oppression. I know, good luck with that one.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by .45 Combat

Some people own and fly vintage aircraft, such P-51's, P-38's etc., not to mention B-25 bombers and the like. Any strafing going on in the news.

However, there are household chemicals, that can be used in making explosives. If your intentions are to kill, you'll find a way.

We need to protect our selfs against oppression. I know, good luck with that one.

Those classic aircraft do not have active weapons. I don't see how that is relevant to this matter. As for household chemicals, that build your own point has already been made and debated.

[Glock20 10mm]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Those classic aircraft do not have active weapons. I don't see how that is relevant to this matter. As for household chemicals, that build your own point has already been made and debated.

Hmmm, not that hard for someone that owns the aircraft to put active weapons in. The simple fact is the people that own them are responsible like about 98% of the rest of the weapons owning private citizens.

There will always be loons that will misuse their rights and deprive others of theirs. But that is part of the price of freedom and liberty. And in a truly free society the armed citizen that has no intent of harming others stands a better chance of stopping someone than those who are unarmed.

But the whole intention and point of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the citizen had the capability and power to keep the federal government in check should they step out of line. This intent has been covered in numerous documents created by the authors.

[Pilotdude3407]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

No offense but that is way to simplistic. The weapons systems of then are not the weapon system of now. Drive down to the local megamart store, look around and tell me you want all of those folks with free access to some RPG7s, SA7s, maybe a surplus T-60, or some nice chemical weapions...or how about your neighbor storing a half dozen 500lb bombs in his garage?

Also the militia of the 1700s were on par with the military arms of the day as the musket and cannon were much more basic weapons than today. That type of balance between the civilian and military of today is simple not achievable. Using it as a point of debate is simply outdated IMO.

It really isn't all that outdated. The 2nd amendment was created to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It was intended so the general a population would be able to fight off a threatening government...like Britain. Just because the weapon systems then were very basic doesn't mean it becomes invalid now. IF we ever had to fight the federal government we would essentially be at a disadvantage because they are allowed to own things we are not. The bottom line is, the government does not trust individuals with such massive fire power. It is sad we have gotten here, especially since in the big scheme of things, this is not that big of a deal. (I.e. cars kill more people than guns, so do doctors, so do a lot of things)

[eccho]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Point me towards a better legal system, anywhere in the world. It's not perfect by a long shot (few things involving men are) but what system would you prefer?

All some of you want to do is moan and groan about how horrible, evil and corrupt things are but don't seem to want to do anything at all to try and fix the system you say is so broken.

Really dude? I get what your saying but c'mon now. You don't need to be so abrasive.

Crying and tongueout emoticons? That was kind of unnecessary.

"All some of you want to do is moan and groan about how horrible, evil and corrupt things are but don't seem to want to do anything at all to try and fix the system you say is so broken." What on earth is he supposed to do?

I would argue that complaining about something is better than just taking it.

I tell you what, how about I draft a proposal for the revision of the entire political establishment of the United States and send that off to the legislative branch of government?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by eccho

Really dude? I get what your saying but c'mon now. You don't need to be so abrasive.

Crying and tongueout emoticons? That was kind of unnecessary.

"All some of you want to do is moan and groan about how horrible, evil and corrupt things are but don't seem to want to do anything at all to try and fix the system you say is so broken." What on earth is he supposed to do?

I would argue that complaining about something is better than just taking it.

I tell you what, how about I draft a proposal for the revision of the entire political establishment of the United States and send that off to the legislative branch of government?

Yeah really dude.

Did you read what he posted?

"What planet are you living on? The costs are prohibitive for the common citizen. Just to retain a lawyer to BEGIN actions would break my account for like... the rest of my life. The legal system you seem to be so proud of is part of the problem as well. There is no justice in this nation except for those that can pay."

Oh poor me I am a victim of the rich people and their laws.....typical liberal crap. I don't think he is a liberal but darn if that does not sound like one crying about class inequity in America. It's crap from a liberal or whatever political party.....it's crap from him IMO. It might be abrasive but his whining was abrasive to me. Not to mention I clearly was not saying he should pocket the cost but align a lawsuit with companies making these weapon systems as I am sure they would love a commercial market if they were legalized.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Pilotdude3407

It really isn't all that outdated. The 2nd amendment was created to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It was intended so the general a population would be able to fight off a threatening government...like Britain. Just because the weapon systems then were very basic doesn't mean it becomes invalid now. IF we ever had to fight the federal government we would essentially be at a disadvantage because they are allowed to own things we are not. The bottom line is, the government does not trust individuals with such massive fire power. It is sad we have gotten here, especially since in the big scheme of things, this is not that big of a deal. (I.e. cars kill more people than guns, so do doctors, so do a lot of things)

Sadly after today this debate seems pointless. In no way do I think today would have been prevented with any version of the AWB but regardless of that fact I think we will see it re-enacted. As feel good legislation.

Any such notion as the repeal (which most on here support) or even altering (which I support) of the NFA is a dead issue.

The votes in D.C. are there to bring the AWB back is at least some form.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Glock20 10mm

Hmmm, not that hard for someone that owns the aircraft to put active weapons in. The simple fact is the people that own them are responsible like about 98% of the rest of the weapons owning private citizens.

There will always be loons that will misuse their rights and deprive others of theirs. But that is part of the price of freedom and liberty. And in a truly free society the armed citizen that has no intent of harming others stands a better chance of stopping someone than those who are unarmed.

But the whole intention and point of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the citizen had the capability and power to keep the federal government in check should they step out of line. This intent has been covered in numerous documents created by the authors.

I agree with #2 & #3 (to a different degree than you clearly) but #1 is a stretch to say the least. If they are arming a P51 then they can arm a Cessna as well. To bring classic military planes into the debate is clearly because they were weapons system at one time, as I said there are not strafing attacks because they are no longer armed. The poster might as well used any plane as a example.

[DanaT]

I havent kept up with the thread. Has anyone got the laws overturned yet?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

I agree with #2 & #3 (to a different degree than you clearly) but #1 is a stretch to say the least. If they are arming a P51 then they can arm a Cessna as well. To bring classic military planes into the debate is clearly because they were weapons system at one time, as I said there are not strafing attacks because they are no longer armed. The poster might as well used any plane as a example.

Planes don't need armament. They are flying bombs. 9/11 proved that.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Planes don't need armament. They are flying bombs. 9/11 proved that.

Wow...just wow.....


His point was that were not seeing any strafing runs even though private citizens had all types of WWII fighter aircraft is private possession. If military grade weapons in the hands of average citizens were dangerous why were we not see these aircraft used as such.

My reply was that they were no longer armed any more than a Cessna was so of course they were not military grade weapons as he implied.

And from that you come up with basically

"yeah but they can still crash into things and cause massive damage."

And that proves what? That almost anything can be used to cause destruction? And that means we should just allow whoever to own whatever because anything can be used as a weapon?

Reed Richards could not make that reach of logic you just did. Congrats.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Wow...just wow.....


His point was that were not seeing any strafing runs even though private citizens had all types of WWII fighter aircraft is private possession. If military grade weapons in the hands of average citizens were dangerous why were we not see these aircraft used as such.

My reply was that they were no longer armed any more than a Cessna was so of course they were not military grade weapons as he implied.

And from that you come up with basically

"yeah but they can still crash into things and cause massive damage."

And that proves what? That almost anything can be used to cause destruction? And that means we should just allow whoever to own whatever because anything can be used as a weapon?

Reed Richards could not make that reach of logic you just did. Congrats.

It proves that you can kill with about anything. You don't need ordinance on a plane to kill. You just need a plane. So, I am guessing owning planes will soon be banned? That only corporations and the military will only be allowed to own aircraft, because it is too dangerous for citizens to have. Which, I think fits well within your modus operedi, doesn't it?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

It proves that you can kill with about anything. You don't need ordinance on a plane to kill. You just need a plane. So, I am guessing owning planes will soon be banned? That only corporations and the military will only be allowed to own aircraft, because it is too dangerous for citizens to have. Which, I think fits well within your modus operedi, doesn't it?

So why do you own self defense type guns? Why do you want access to any weapons we are talking about that is current restricted?

I mean if you can kill with just about anything why do you need any of it?

.......

Because it makes the killing a whole hellua a lot more efficient and easier is why.

Again back to the ability of adults to rationalize.

P51 unarmed in crazy guys hands = smaller risk to society than fully armed (as in 6 x .50 BMG) P51 in same guys hands to use the plane analogy.

Tell you what reply this time and you can have the last word for good cause we are not debating on the same level IMO and I am not going to reply back.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

So why do you own self defense type guns? Why do you want access to any weapons we are talking about that is current restricted?

I mean if you can kill with just about anything why do you need any of it?

Good golly, you sound like you are channeling Diane Fienstein and the folks in the UK who have banned anything pointy.

.......

Because it makes the killing a whole hellua a lot more efficient and easier is why.

Actually, within a certain distance a person wielding a knife is more likely to kill somoene with a firearm. Either way, you are going to get cut, maimed or killed, even if you have a handgun out and ready, unless you can offline in time. So, you're "point", to use a pun, is silly.

Again back to the ability of adults to rationalize.

P51 unarmed in crazy guys hands = smaller risk to society than fully armed (as in 6 x .50 BMG) P51 in same guys hands to use the plane analogy.

So, I guess you want to ban the .50 as not being worhty of consideration in your world as well?

Tell you what reply this time and you can have the last word for good cause we are not debating on the same level IMO and I am not going to reply back.

I've heard that before. There is no way to make society safe. The bad guys will always have anything that want at their disposal, NFA or otherwise? Why? Because, they are bad guys, it is their nature to do whatever they want, laws be damned.

The only people getting screwed over are the law abiding citizens. None of these laws deter the criminal element, not even a little bit. If laws stopped criminals, then there would not be any need for law enforcement, the judicial system, or prisons.

Laws aren't magical barriers that keep bad things from happening. Laws infringing on the 2A don't make society safe. They just keep honest people from fully excercising their liberties. The criminal element has been enjoying the full largesse of the 2A despite whatever the law says. A shocker, they will continue to do that.

To illustrate the point: