GT40s.com Paddock GUNS thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
Larry gives up by calling other people’s posts crap. Love it. Larry, your posts are pure NRA propaganda aka crap too.
Pretty soon you gun owners can fight “autonomous weapons.” The same technology that’s bringing us robotic driving will be bringing us robots with guns. Just like the movie Terminator.
Autonomous Weapons Would Take Warfare To A New Domain, Without Humans : All Tech Considered : NPR
Pretty soon you gun owners can fight “autonomous weapons.” The same technology that’s bringing us robotic driving will be bringing us robots with guns. Just like the movie Terminator.
Autonomous Weapons Would Take Warfare To A New Domain, Without Humans : All Tech Considered : NPR
Rod,
you are smoking some good stuff..get back on your meds...
you are smoking some good stuff..get back on your meds...
The NRA line: what you say is crap or “you’re on meds.”
Robots are being developed by the police and military all over the world. We’re not there yet, but we’re nearly there with cars like Tesla. Look to the future. Your guns won’t protect you against autonomous weapons. But I’m sure the NRA will love robots with guns because we can have our robots fight for us.
Robots are being developed by the police and military all over the world. We’re not there yet, but we’re nearly there with cars like Tesla. Look to the future. Your guns won’t protect you against autonomous weapons. But I’m sure the NRA will love robots with guns because we can have our robots fight for us.
I've never understood the NRA's apparent acceptance(?) of the government's ban/severe restriction on the citizenry's ownership of fully automatic "arms" themselves...let alone a ban on 'bump stocks'.
Where in the 2nd Amend, or anywhere else in the constitution, did *The Founders* grant government the power to dictate exactly which arms "the people" could and could NOT keep and bear??? The whole intent of "no law infringing", in no minor part, was to ensure "the people" had access to whatever new weapons might come along in the future as opposed to being restricted by government dictate to the flintlocks and muskets of The Founders' day.
I submit The Founders granted government NO such power. They KNEW government would abuse it to the point where "the people" would one day be limited to 'keeping and bearing' slingshots...thereby neutering the whole purpose and intent of the 2nd Amend and the rights granted under it.
(*The Founders*...NOT some far left lib court/judge who decided to employ the judicial tool of "interpretation" and "deeeeem" government had been given that power.)
Where would/should someone draw the line Larry?
Arms could be wide open and include everything from a single slingshot all the way up to and including the largest and most deadliest weapon that could be carried and operated by a man. Would that include shoulder fired rocket launchers? Even larger? How about using my 1 ton truck to help me bear arms that include artillery?
Is there some “logical” point where we should define and draw the line?
Arms could be wide open and include everything from a single slingshot all the way up to and including the largest and most deadliest weapon that could be carried and operated by a man. Would that include shoulder fired rocket launchers? Even larger? How about using my 1 ton truck to help me bear arms that include artillery?
Is there some “logical” point where we should define and draw the line?
Most of the anti gun people on this site don't have any knowledge of calibers, ballistics, etc. The very fact that a sub-sonic 22 short round is the favored round of assassins makes all this big, powerful gun talk ridiculous. People think because a rifle looks like an assault rifle, it is. There are plenty of 22 caliber rifles that look like fully auto assault rifles. When Obama came into office there were 260,000,000 firearms in the US. All the "take away guns" did was panic people into buying another 70,000,000 firearms. Firearms will never be taken away in the US, ever. Start looking at left leaning loonies that are killing people. Oh, by the way,They need to ban white vans in Canada now.
Founders schmounders.
The founders said that black people are 3/5th of a person too. I don't understand why people think we should rely on a 200+ year old document.
The Government can regulate guns and we do, but certainly not enough.
'Been over this several time before...buuuut:
The key word in "keep and BEAR" is the word "bear"...as in carry. If one can physically CARRY it, a good case can be made it's covered under "keep and BEAR" - if ONLY thru "interpretation". "Carrying" it in your pickup bed though...eeeeeeh...doesn't really fit the definition of "carry". HOWEVER, using the judicial tool of "interpretation" referred to previously, a darned good case can be made that one has the right to "keep" (own) 'whatever' regardless of whether one can physically "carry" it or not.
But, let's take the shoulder-fired 'launcher, for instance. W-H-Y would one want to CARRY it? What GOOD IS IT as a "carry" weapon??? It'd be a PITB to pack something like that around...not to mention the fact it'd be u-s-e-l-e-s-s in 99.9% of real world self-defense situations. Would you use it for self-defense in your home for instance???! Once it were fired, you'd HAVE NO HOME LEFT! Furthermore...what good would it be when facing multiple perps at close range coming from multiple directions?
One's own COMMON SENSE ought to dictate what "arm" is appropriate for one to use in this-or-that self-defense situation - not some 'one-choice-fits-all' government LAW. OTOH, what "the PEOPLE" might need to oppose a tyrannical government would obviously set the bar far HIGHER weapons-wise than would be the case for "personal protection/defense"...and the whole tyrannical government thing was THEE main reason the 2nd Amend was penned.
'Have no idea. I know we haven't reached that point YET...and when/if we DO, the 2nd Amend will have to be amended/changed in order to CONSTITUTIONALLY set that "limit". (Good luck "repealing" it...)
Now, how 'bout answering MY question?
Where in the 2nd Amend - or anywhere else in the constitution - did THE FOUNDERS grant government the power to dictate what "arms" the people could and could NOT "keep and bear"??? Please point out to me where it can be found.
Last edited:
As usual, YOUR 'answer' has NOTHING TO DO with the question asked.
"Founders schmounders" is a junior high response/comment, BTW.
Last edited:
First off - we’re not just talking about “carry” weapons here as 2A does not address only CARRY weapons (bear)..
So getting this straight - You feel that the shoulder fired rocket launcher would be -
1) a PITB because of its bulk
2) useless in 99.9% in a self defense situation.
If we were to use your judgement insofar as 2A applicability is concerned, 2A would NOT include weapons like the Shoulder Fired Rocket Launcher.
Now my buddy Bubba down the street thinks you’re an anti 2A looney because he’s dead certain that 2A means he can own and possibly bear any armament he wants and you can have his SFRL when you pry his cold-dead-fingers from it...
—-
So all of this is interesting for conversation sake and maybe even arguable to a point - however - I don’t believe the FF had the foresight to include artillery and weapons of mass destruction etc...
Indeed they (FF) were probably the most educated people in the land at the time.
They had lived through arguable tyrannical rule under the Kings and Queens of their fatherlands and wanted to be sure that the United States of America was a land that was founded and will remain free of such ruler ships... Their thoughts, at the time, were likely - He with the largest stockpile of black powder and lead would win and thereby rule. And that winner should never be an oppressive government.
—
So put yourself back a coupla hundred years or so. Think about what was then and what is now. Are we currently living in a society that is a model representation of what the FF sought for their United States of America?
Larry, you lack any ability to feel humor whatsoever. That's obvious to me.
And as usual, you (and Walt) just dismiss any opposing response as either "crap," "nothing to do with the question" or "you're on meds."
Yes, the point is YOU rely on YOUR FLAWED interpetation of a 200+ year old document, which is in 2018 is severely FLAWED, including the electoral college, but that's another topic.
Talking to a gun supporter is a waste of my time. I'd rather talk about the impeachment of Comrade Trump. More fun, because it involves porn stars and Russian hookers that pee'd on each other.
I certainly agree, Rod...particularly when those "Founders Schmounders" had no time travel machine so that they could see what was coming down the "weapon" pike centuries later.
Oh...I forgot...the 2nd Amendment is just that, an Amendment, and it, too, can be amended...if we ever get enough members in congress who are not in the grasp of the gun lobbyists.
We had an amendment that prohibited alcohol consumption...and now we have no such prohibition. That shows that Amendments CAN be amended, themselves. Now congress just needs to figure out how to shove the nose of the NRA up Trump's little bee-hind so that he won't veto the measure.
You know, though, as I think about it I think we may be discussing "...much ado about nothing", so to speak. The 2A has been around for quite a while, so why hasn't this issue been such a huge brouhaha so far?
I know the answer...the "terroristic" acts that have given weapons a bad name have increased. Unfortunately, the "terrorists" ARE using assault-style rifles to attack us. Whether or not they are "automatic" isn't the real issue, it's the nature of the damage the guns produce (but the fully automatic weapon still has no place in sporting events, like hunting...IMHO, of course!)
:idea:
Cheers!
Doug
Guys - we need to also be aware that shotguns can and will wreck more havoc than an assault rifle can in close quarters. They (shotguns) are also not even on anyone's radar right now.
You outlaw assault rifles - the bad guys will select a different weapon and most likely one that will not draw attention to them...
--
I'm really quite surprised that the weapons of choice are not handguns. They were developed solely as anti-personell weapons, not as weapons to be used for hunting and not well suited for even target shooting competition....
You outlaw assault rifles - the bad guys will select a different weapon and most likely one that will not draw attention to them...
--
I'm really quite surprised that the weapons of choice are not handguns. They were developed solely as anti-personell weapons, not as weapons to be used for hunting and not well suited for even target shooting competition....
Randy,
you are right... Take away the rifles and the will use shot guns,pistols, knives, fire ,base ball bat, pipe bomb, a rental van, school bus. The list goes on and on. An evil person will do evil.
I can't rember ever seeing a civilian with a bazooka as some have suggested.
you are right... Take away the rifles and the will use shot guns,pistols, knives, fire ,base ball bat, pipe bomb, a rental van, school bus. The list goes on and on. An evil person will do evil.
I can't rember ever seeing a civilian with a bazooka as some have suggested.
'NOT what I said at all! REREAD it. I said, in essence, it'd qualify as a carry weapon (because it obviously CAN be "carried") - but WHY would anyone WANT / choose to carry it? I'd be a pain in the butt to do so AND wouldn't be worth a tinker's damn in 99.9% of real world self-defense situations. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze, man...!!!
Now...WHERE IN THE 2ND AMEND - OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION - DID THE FOUNDERS grant/give government the authority/power to decide/dictate which "arms" the people could and could NOT "keep and bear"???
I'll wait...
Larry - settle down just a bit... I am not attacking your position here.
As a Moderator here, I am charged with taking a neutral position in order to mediate conversations... While I do have feelings that may lean one direction or another, I try hard to understand both sides of the argument. Believe me, it’s not an easy job sometimes,,,
What I was doing was trying to figure out a modified approach to 2A using just a smidge of your own thoughts regarding shoulder fired rocket launchers...
I do feel that 2A was created without benefit of a crystal ball and it was done so with only knowledge of currently available arms. Maybe some day we’ll have star wars light sabers and can slice people in half with our digital machetes...
Does 2A need to be modified (which is one more Federal control) or do we allow individual states to override Federal Laws in regard to personally owned arms?
— before you answer —
Know that I fully believe and maintain that our rights are limited and any rights we allow to be modified or forfeited altogether will be difficult if not impossible to ever regain..
As a Moderator here, I am charged with taking a neutral position in order to mediate conversations... While I do have feelings that may lean one direction or another, I try hard to understand both sides of the argument. Believe me, it’s not an easy job sometimes,,,
What I was doing was trying to figure out a modified approach to 2A using just a smidge of your own thoughts regarding shoulder fired rocket launchers...
I do feel that 2A was created without benefit of a crystal ball and it was done so with only knowledge of currently available arms. Maybe some day we’ll have star wars light sabers and can slice people in half with our digital machetes...
Does 2A need to be modified (which is one more Federal control) or do we allow individual states to override Federal Laws in regard to personally owned arms?
— before you answer —
Know that I fully believe and maintain that our rights are limited and any rights we allow to be modified or forfeited altogether will be difficult if not impossible to ever regain..
Before I delve into that - please answer my question. Nobody seems to want to touch it with a 1000 foot pole...and I know why.
Thank yeeew.
- Status
