Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
They say one way to spot a Russian troll is a fixation on all CAPS.
GT40s.com Paddock GUNS thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
Not according to Larry, Rick...he'll tell you in no uncertain terms that the FF's decreed that EVERYONE should be allowed to possess and use weapons without any restrictions. He thinks that is what the FF's meant. In fact, I'd be willing to predict he even thinks convicted felons and individuals with mental issues should be allowed to have guns. That's how we get these mass shootings...but, of course, Larry would have thought about that, or at least would have thought that the FF's would have thought of that.
I'm willing to admit that the 2A was necessary waaaaay back when the government was gaining power and the states were afraid the Federal government would prohibit them from possessing firearms...
...but...to say EVERYONE, without exception, has the right to possess weapons, possibly even weapons of mass destruction, is just pure nonsense.
I'm a gun owner and have been since my late teens...but, if the government decreed that every private firearm should be confiscated, with the expectation that after that confiscation period anyone who used a firearm to commit a crime would suffer a severe sentence (perhaps life in prison without the possibility of parole) I'd gladly turn mine over to the person at my door and never look back. I prioritize people over the ramblings of a bunch of well-meaning individuals who were dealing as well as they could with the problems of their time, but who had no idea of the problems to arise in the future.
Doug
Is that all you have.... Unreal... Carry on defender of justice
Jeff,
you are pathetic, you claim to be a professional defender of justice, yet you spend all day on a car forum busting the balls of a senior citizen..
you are pathetic, you claim to be a professional defender of justice, yet you spend all day on a car forum busting the balls of a senior citizen..
We've gone 'round and 'round on this before, Jeff.
The Founders said we had the RIGHT to keep ("own") and bear ("carry"). So, given that, it's clear the "arms" to which The Founders referred were "arms" we could "carry". We CANNOT "carry" an aircraft carrier...or a B-52...or an atomic sub...or an Abrams tank...or an ICBM...or any of the rest of the absurdities you and others have brought up in the past. HOWEVER (as I've ALSO mentioned ad nauseam), using lib judges' favorite tool - "I-N-T-E-R-P-R-E-T-A-T-I-O-N" - a DARNED GOOD CASE can be made that we DO have the right to "keep" (own) 'em. The Founders did NOT say citizens could NOT own military-type 'carry' weapons (or any military weapon for that matter). In fact, it was their intent that "the people" have access to the latest "arms" (carry-type) available 'down the road' whatever they may be.
1. Felons can own guns. (Felons constitutionally LOSE their right to keep and bear thru "due process" as a consequence of BEING a felon. It's part of their punishment.)
2. A 2 year old can buy an assault rifle. (That's imbecilic even for you.)
3. A 30 year old woman with a long history of mental illness can by (buy) a fully automatic BAR. (What's the nature of her "mental illness" [there are many types...some pose no danger to anyone] and who made that judgment? One or more bureaucrats, or multiple qualified psychiatrists who unanimously made that diagnosis?) (This tactic for disarming people is ALREADY being kicked around within lib circles. WHO will decide who's nuts and who isn't and by what yardstick will he/she/they determine whether or not someone is the type of nut who poses a danger to himself/herself and/or to others? Who will 'oversee' the 'deciders'?)
4. Your uncle Bob who lives in a van down by the river can by a surplus bazooka. (Does he have a criminal record? Can said "bazooka" be carried? If "no" to the former and "yes" to the latter, a case can easily be made that he could...but, what the devil would be the practical sense in having one from a self-defense standpoint? It'd be a pain in the BUTT to pack one of those around. [E.g.: I have every right to buy/own/drive a Peterbilt 10-wheel highway tractor as my 'daily driver'...but, WHY THE DEVIL would I choose to DO that?])
Oh! Now, THAT scares the crap outta me...
NOW - what about "no" meaning "no" in a rape case vs. "no" somehow meaning "yes" in the 2nd Amend? Explain to me how "no" can LEGITIMATELY be "interpreted" as meaning anything other than "no".
Same old arguments that we had here and in Australia, no, the US IS different. The amount of guns in circulation is significantly more (per capita) than almost anywhere else, so I guess you’re stuffed.
It amazes me the arguments the pro-gun lobby usually brings out “we don’t ban cars/planes when people die...why ban guns” well, people dying in car and plane accidents is a by- product (sadly) of their primary use as transport....guns primary use is to kill ( that’s the reason they were invented guys)
Simon
One more point the pro-gun statement often touted........” guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is utter Bollox, people WITH GUNS kill people.
"Utter Bollox"?
People with knives also kill people...people with bombs kill people...people with bats kill people...people with hammers, poison, hatchets, pitchforks, bows and arrows, and primarily in the case of terrorists; planes, cars, trucks, STONES and a host of other things kill people. 'Matters not what their "primary use" might be.
A gun doesn't load itself, aim itself, or pull its own trigger. It just 'sits' wherever it's put. It'll sit there forever until it rusts away w/o ever having killed a soul unless a person picks it up, loads it, aims it, and pulls its trigger. PEOPLE kill people. And yet only the gun is blamed when one of them is used to do the dirty deed. There's never a big hue and cry to ban ANY of the other items mentioned when they are intentionally used to kill someone. Why not? Aren't the people they kill just as dead?
Oh, yeah...the "primary use" thing. 'Got it. Of course, no one ever stops to think that, were all guns to suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth, those "primary use" items would become the 'fall back' weapons of choice.
:chug:
"Utter Bollox"?
People with knives also kill people...people with bombs kill people...people with bats kill people...people with hammers, poison, hatchets, pitchforks, bows and arrows, and primarily in the case of terrorists; planes, cars, trucks, STONES and a host of other things kill people. 'Matters not what their "primary use" might be.
A gun doesn't load itself, aim itself, or pull its own trigger. It just 'sits' wherever it's put. It'll sit there forever until it rusts away w/o ever having killed a soul unless a person picks it up, loads it, aims it, and pulls its trigger. PEOPLE kill people. And yet only the gun is blamed when one of them is used to do the dirty deed. There's never a big hue and cry to ban ANY of the other items mentioned when they are intentionally used to kill someone. Why not? Aren't the people they kill just as dead?
Oh, yeah...the "primary use" thing. 'Got it. Of course, no one ever stops to think that, were all guns to suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth, those "primary use" items would become the 'fall back' weapons of choice.
:chug:
WOW! Just wow! You just validated my whole argument.
You just don’t get it do you? A gun and a bomb are designed to KILL PEOPLE. Nothing else. I eat my dinner with a knife, play games with a bat, use a hammer to knock in a nail. To try and say “why not ban them” is just childish and (frankly) clutching at straws. I can’t quite believe you spat the “people kill people” line at me again.
Did I ever say guns should be banned from the face of the earth?
It worked here and in Australia. When someone gets shot over here it’s a big deal, it seems that for you guys it’s just another mother’s son, who gives a 5hit as long as I’ve got my guns.....
Sorry, but you should see it from over here, just the numbers of dead children are staggering and nobody seems to care.
So, so sad.
Simon
No, Simon, it's you who either chooses to, or doesn't want to "get it". Guns are NOT designed solely "to kill people". They're also used for things like providing meat for one's table and ridding ranches of predatory critters in rural areas...and, yes, most definitely for personal/home D-E-F-E-N-S-E.
I'll ask again: what's the difference in the degree of 'dead' (so to speak) between someone who's been killed with a knife, hammer, or you-name-it and someone who's been killed with a gun?
Answer: None. They're all equally as dead. And it was a person who killed 'em...NOT the implement said person used.
Why? It's a statement of absolute fact. W/O a person loading, aiming, and firing it - a gun CANNOT kill anyone or any thing. It's an absolute impossibility.
Not to my knowledge. Not here anyway. Where did I claim you did?
Now, rather than sit here and go back-and-forth on this all day, I'm going out to my shop and get my hot rod truck ready for the local rodding season's 'opening day' cruise/show instead.
:chug:
Above you dealt with hypotheticals laid out in strict adherence to the usual anti-gun narrative 'guidelines'. What follows is just one example of an actual, real life situation as it happened...not a 'hypothetical':
Convicted felon shot, killed by homeowner during Tennessee home invasion: cops | Fox News
"The (victim) was ordered to hand over "three long guns and a pistol" from a safe (you know ...the place wherein guns will be 'safe' from theft?) which the robbers left with...Bishop (victim) got a pistol from another room (you know, the room in which you've repeatedly told us one should NEVER keep an "unsecured" gun?) and went outside to look for (his wife) when he once again met Adams and his partner. Police said that Bishop fired shots at the two, "fatally wounding Adams." The second robber "dropped the long guns and the pistol that had been taken from the safe (again; the safe you insist is the ONLY place guns should be kept...you know...to keep them out of the hands of thieves?) and ran away."
You'll note both Bishop AND his wife were physically assaulted and were at "grave risk" >BEFORE< Bishop got his hands on the gun "in the other room"...you know...the gun you keep insisting should always be kept in a safe...in this case the very safe from which the other guns were STOLEN? It was only after Bishop got the other gun, the gun that undoubtedly must have been "stored improperly" by your standards, that life got 'complicated' for the SCUMBAGS. Until then - the scumbags were in charge and the 2 vics were the ones who found themselves in deep excrement.
Please spare us the 'woulda', 'coulda', 'shoulda', 'mighta happeneds'. We all know the various hypothetical scenarios/possible outcomes. But, as is most often the case, THEY didn't happen in this case. What HAPPENED is what happened.
I know you'll be insisting that Bishop should have called 9-1-1 'cause the perps had left the house, blah, blah, blah. But, if the facts as reported were/are accurate, Bishop didn't KNOW where his wife was and he wanted to find her - NOW. That's what resulted in his reengagement with the perps.
As I mentioned, we all KNOW what "coulda"/"mighta"/"maya" happened. You're going to tell us the Bishops were just LUCKY they survived/weren't killed. Well, Sir - so were you. YOU, however, were just lucky enough to have been visited by the criminal version of the 'welcome wagon'. The Bishop's were not.
Life's a crap shoot...
G'night.
Last edited:
Again Larry, defending of your right to have guns is the most important thing to you. You try to take apart my argument line by line, but not a word about the dead children and thousands of innocent victims. Still as long as you’ve got your guns, fu** em eh?
I’m done, you just can’t have a reasoned argument with some people.
Simon
I’m done, you just can’t have a reasoned argument with some people.
Simon
Give me the wording of THEE law 'the consequences for violating which would be so horrific, so trauma inducing in the hearts and minds of crooks and loons everywhere that they dare not even think about violating it much less actually doing so...and would thereby end all mass shootings forever. I submit no such a law can be written. You've not said a word about that.
I further submit that unconstitutionally infringing on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms will NOT change the behavior of crooks and loons. They'll continue to break whatever laws are enacted and commit whatever horrors they wish regardless. Proof? We already have a gadzillion laws on the books none of which prevented the mass shootings to which you referred.
As to my not having said a word "about the dead children and thousands of innocent victims" of those mass shootings - what can be said that hasn't already been said about the horror of all that? Answer: nothing. But, your having brought UP that subject wasn't solely out of concern for the victims, was it. No. Your main purpose was to get in a less-than-subtle accusation 'suggesting' that my opposition to so-called "gun control laws" somehow means/indicates I don't CARE about the lives lost, wasn't it ("as long as I have my guns, fu** em eh?")...which is a personal insult way beyond the pale...and a standard tactic used by the left on this side of the pond as well: "If you don't believe this or say that...if you're not for this or against that, then it proves you're a sociopathic sub-human and worse."
I'm just as 'tired' of that.
Simon I feel your pain and frustration, in my opinion you are right as you, I and many others have found to our cost. Again in my opinion, you are on a hiding to nothing from the pro-gun movement if you use logic or valid points in a debate on gun control in the US, they will be dismissed out of hand or worse you have to be prepared “to hear the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”.
So where is my proof?
This one from Larry, or a similarly veined request to produce a gun control law, comes up at regular occasions, paraphrased:-
1 I gave Larry a law, his retort was it was against the 2nd amendment.
It came up again.
1 I gave him the law, his retort was it was against the 2nd amendment.
2 I said amend the 2nd amendment, his retort was this was unconstitutional.
3 I said the amendment is an amendment in its self just amend the bloody amendment.
4 He said that would be unconstitutional,
It came up again.
1 I said I posted a law before he didn’t like it, no point posting the same law again he has made up his mind, nothing I say will change it.
2 He said he didn’t recall ever seeing my law, and if he didn’t like it, it would be because it didn’t pass the 2nd amendment, please repost it.
3 I said he had replied several times to my posts so must have forgotten seeing it, I then posted a piece on how the amendment could be amended in US law as it was done for prohibition.
4. He said he knew all about the amendment process. That has nothing to do with what we're supposedly addressing. That info is simply obfuscation and redirection. So, he was left with the impression that the 'mystery gun law' to which I referred will remain just that...if it exists at all.
5 I said the law I gave him was there I did not have time to search for it as I was off to watch a rugby match in France. (We won)
6 He said, evidentially he automatically did have the time...right? and that repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't end gun crime any more than Prohibition ended the production, sale and consumption of booze.
I left it at this point feeling at least regarding my law, it had changed from “if it exists at all to, amending the 2nd amendment for guns would never work because it hadn’t worked for prohibition. :shrug:
The US has a "gadzillion" laws on the books against drug misuse, it does not prevent the mass use of drugs but they still enforce and increase them, should they stop doing that?.
Interesting one, I have lost count of the number of times I have been accused of tactics and rhetoric used by the “left” often leading to personal attacks and insults against me, when in fact the same tactics and rhetoric are used by the “right” just as much.
I appreciate many in the US do not believe in religion or God, and that is entirely their right, but, if only the millions of religious conservatives in the US who support Mr Trump and purport to follow God’s laws actually did so with the fervent zeal and arguments they use to support the 2nd amendment, instead of coming out with rhetoric diametrically opposed to God’s laws, perhaps a solution could be found.
I will agree with 2 accusations made against me in the past, one as a non US citizen it is not really any of my business. Two most likely nobody involved in this debate is going to change their minds.
I hope you can find a solution that gets your gun murders down to the levels we are so lucky to have in the UK around 50 to 60 annually, which is still 50 to 60 to many.
Last edited:
Every ''solution' you proposed law-wise W-A-S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! THEY "I-N-F-R-I-N-G-E-D on the 'Constitutional right - RIGHT - to keep and bear! THAT is precisely why I said they were unconstitutional! Like it or not - THEY ALL WERE! And, over HERE, "unconstitutional" laws are automatically null and void upon their signing...at least that's the way it's supposed to work.
"Amending"/"eliminating" the 2nd Amend is NOT as simple/quick as you seem to believe. It's a long and involved process. Congress cannot simply "PASS A LAW" to do either. It takes a 2/3rds or 3/4ths "yea" vote by the congress or the states to do that depending on this and that. And, in the end, as I stated, if the 2nd Amendment WERE amended OR completely repealed, AND a thousand more new "gun CONTROL laws" were passed, signed and enacted - crooks and loons would STILL continue to do what they do. The ONLY thing that would change is law-abiding people would no longer have guns or the right to carry 'em...and THEY aren't the problem. 'Never were.
Either you 'get that' or you don't. As someone once said, all I can do is 'splain it to you. I can't understand it for you.
Google something like "process for amending or repealing the U.S. Constitution" and see for yourself. I'm tired of going back and forth on it.
Those who want to see what I did or did not post 'IN FULL CONTEXT' can go back 2-3 pages and look for yourselves. I'm not ABOUT to go thru Nick's entire post above and deal with it line-by-line. Like I said - go look for yourselves. (I doubt anyone will bother. I know I sure wouldn't.)
G'night, all.
I did Larry and put in a post when I replied to you
To me you seem to be constantly moving the goal posts.
1. I challenge you to write me a gun control law.
Here is your gun control law.
2. That is unconstitutional as it is against the 2nd amendment.
Of course it is at present hence part of my new law involved amending the 2nd amendment to make it constitutional.
3. Your law will never work, it didn't for prohabition.
You will never know unless you try it.
4 Now your latest new amendment to the challenge, I can't have my law because "Amending"/"eliminating" the 2nd Amend is NOT simple/quick
Kind of reminds me of something
What Have The Romans... - Monty Python's Life of Brian - YouTube
Interesting, that is usually exactly what you do (pointed out in post #91 for example), I have drawn my own conclusions as to why you haven’t
Probably best and more constructive that we agree to disagree
Last edited:
Oh, I'm sure you have...and those "conclusions" are just as wrong as your view on what does and does NOT constitute an "infringement" on the 2nd Amend.
"Infringe (compliation from multiple dictionaries) :
CONTRAVENE, VIOLATE, transgress, break, breach, disobey, DEFY, flout, fly in the face of, disregard, ignore, LIMIT, RESTRICT, CURB, CHECK, overstep, exceed, infract, ERODE, PREEMPT, SUPPLANT, DISPLACE, CUT OUT, USURP..."
Like it or not, agree with it or not; any law that does any of those things IS unconstitutional. The ONLY WAY any such a law can be found "constitutional" is thru "i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n" by some anti-gun agenda-driven judge(s) who chooses to ignore his (their) oath to uphold the constitution and "deem" it so.
"The books" are full of gun laws that couldn't/wouldn't pass constitutional muster any other way.
The 2nd Amendment will n-e-v-e-r be repealed/"amended". You'll see the sun rise in the West and set in the East first. It's a non starter over here, Nick.
It may have occurred to you that NEVER is a very long time. If the left were in full control, the 2nd Amendment could very well be rewritten or removed altogether.
I will say that I am not enamored with the notion that government should have any more controls over the people here than they already have. But I fear that the day is coming where 1984 could indeed come true.
I will say that I am not enamored with the notion that government should have any more controls over the people here than they already have. But I fear that the day is coming where 1984 could indeed come true.
It has...
Which is probably THEE prime reason Democrats shouldn't be elected to office. Retired far left SCOTUS Justice Stephens let the left's "Repeal-The-Second-Amendment" cat out of the bag a couple days ago.
A repeal or rewrite of the 2nd Amend could very easily spark a nation-wide revolt that in some ways could make the 1965 Watts riots look like a Sunday school picnic in "Mayberry R.F.D."...and I doubt many members of the National Guard would comply with orders to quell it by whatever means necessary if things were to get to that point.
The "silent majority" can only be pushed so far. If Trump's election proved nothing else it proved that. UP 'TIL NOW the ballot box has always been the S.M.'s pushback tool. Hopefully that will always remain the case...but, it may not. I'd hate to think conservatives/traditionalists would stoop to adopting the violent tactics of the left.
The Second Amendment is - and should always remain - sacrosanct.
JMHO YOMV
Last edited:
Our current POTUS is making a good case that the next Administration will indeed be from the other side of the floor unless somehow the Electoral College is revamped or tossed out (which I doubt will happen) .... but this branches into politics which needs to go to the Political thread...
- Status
