"Nobody is trying to take your guns away"

[Larry]

How many times have we heard that here? "We just want registration" "You just don't need large clips" "No one is taking your guns"

Bullshit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/...n-in-guns/

[csrowan]

Actually, what I've been saying is that no one wants to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

What you have shown isn't someone wanting to take your guns away, it isn't someone wanting to take away your right to own guns. It's someone wanting to take some of your guns away. I see a difference, even if you don't.

[Willie Krash]

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

States rights baby..!

[tvguy]

Actually, what I've been saying is that no one wants to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

What you have shown isn't someone wanting to take your guns away, it isn't someone wanting to take away your right to own guns. It's someone wanting to take some of your guns away. I see a difference, even if you don't.

OK I want to take away your right to go to SOME churches.

You still have the freedom of speech but they just want to take away your right to say SOME things.

You have the right to remain silent UNLESS I ask certain questions.




Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When a bunch good intentioned but ignorant people can take away my right to have a certain weapon because it looks evil and and accepts high capacity magazines , what weapon will they decide I can't own next?

If they can take away my right to own a weapon that's only used in 2% of gun deaths how long until I lose the right to own a semi auto pistol?

[csrowan]

Actually, what I've been saying is that no one wants to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

What you have shown isn't someone wanting to take your guns away, it isn't someone wanting to take away your right to own guns. It's someone wanting to take some of your guns away. I see a difference, even if you don't.

OK I want to take away your right to go to SOME churches.

You still have the freedom of speech but they just want to take away your right to say SOME things.

You have the right to remain silent UNLESS I ask certain questions.




Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When a bunch good intentioned but ignorant people can take away my right to have a certain weapon because it looks evil and and accepts high capacity magazines , what weapon will they decide I can't own next?

If they can take away my right to own a weapon that's only used in 2% of gun deaths how long until I lose the right to own a semi auto pistol?

You and I have a fundamental difference in how we view firearms. I do not equate the right to own weapons with the right to worship or the right to free speech in any way.

I feel that the right to own things whose sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire is not nearly as important as the right to be able to express your opinions of the government and society or act in a manner you feel to be moral (absent harm to others, of course).

And even so, there are already limits on what we will allow people to do in the name of religion and limits on what people can say, usually based on whether it has the capacity to harm other people or incite them to harm. And as our definition of harm changes, so do the rules on what is or isn't protected.

Why should the same not hold true for firearms?

[gapper]

Actually, what I've been saying is that no one wants to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

What you have shown isn't someone wanting to take your guns away, it isn't someone wanting to take away your right to own guns. It's someone wanting to take some of your guns away. I see a difference, even if you don't.

OK I want to take away your right to go to SOME churches.

You still have the freedom of speech but they just want to take away your right to say SOME things.

You have the right to remain silent UNLESS I ask certain questions.




Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When a bunch good intentioned but ignorant people can take away my right to have a certain weapon because it looks evil and and accepts high capacity magazines , what weapon will they decide I can't own next?

If they can take away my right to own a weapon that's only used in 2% of gun deaths how long until I lose the right to own a semi auto pistol?

You and I have a fundamental difference in how we view firearms. I do not equate the right to own weapons with the right to worship or the right to free speech in any way.

I feel that the right to own things whose sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire is not nearly as important as the right to be able to express your opinions of the government and society or act in a manner you feel to be moral (absent harm to others, of course).

And even so, there are already limits on what we will allow people to do in the name of religion and limits on what people can say, usually based on whether it has the capacity to harm other people or incite them to harm. And as our definition of harm changes, so do the rules on what is or isn't protected.

Why should the same not hold true for firearms?

Precisely. And, it already does hold true to some "arms". (note, the amendment does not state "fire"arms.) This is an old worn out argument proven to be a straw-man long ago.

[Crazylace]

The Second Amendment wasn't written in the time of assault weapons. Most people had muskets and pitchforks.
And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't specifically say people have the right to own assault weapons in order to protect themselves.
It's too vague and needs to be re-written, not by the NRA or by politicians owned by the NRA.
..like that'll happen.

[tvguy]

Actually, what I've been saying is that no one wants to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

What you have shown isn't someone wanting to take your guns away, it isn't someone wanting to take away your right to own guns. It's someone wanting to take some of your guns away. I see a difference, even if you don't.

OK I want to take away your right to go to SOME churches.

You still have the freedom of speech but they just want to take away your right to say SOME things.

You have the right to remain silent UNLESS I ask certain questions.




Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When a bunch good intentioned but ignorant people can take away my right to have a certain weapon because it looks evil and and accepts high capacity magazines , what weapon will they decide I can't own next?

If they can take away my right to own a weapon that's only used in 2% of gun deaths how long until I lose the right to own a semi auto pistol?

You and I have a fundamental difference in how we view firearms. I do not equate the right to own weapons with the right to worship or the right to free speech in any way.

I feel that the right to own things whose sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire is not nearly as important as the right to be able to express your opinions of the government and society or act in a manner you feel to be moral (absent harm to others, of course).

And even so, there are already limits on what we will allow people to do in the name of religion and limits on what people can say, usually based on whether it has the capacity to harm other people or incite them to harm. And as our definition of harm changes, so do the rules on what is or isn't protected.

Why should the same not hold true for firearms?

A right is a right. Your assessment that an assault weapons sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire
is your assessment not mine.

Your assessment doesn't even make sense but what's new with people ignorant about weapons. (BTW not an insult or put down)

fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire


dangerous projectiles WTH they're just bullets.

high speed and high rate of fire

High speed?? what? other guns don't have bullets that go as fast? high rate of fire?

The rate of fire is as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like any other semi automatic weapon.

[Larry]

The Second Amendment wasn't written in the time of assault weapons. Most people had muskets and pitchforks.
And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't specifically say people have the right to own assault weapons in order to protect themselves.
It's too vague and needs to be re-written, not by the NRA or by politicians owned by the NRA.
..like that'll happen.

Technically, the muskets and cannons used during that time were even on both sides. To make the 2nd apply now, we the people should have access to everything the enemy does, just like then.

But I'm willing to be reasonable....

[Crazylace]

The Second Amendment wasn't written in the time of assault weapons. Most people had muskets and pitchforks.
And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't specifically say people have the right to own assault weapons in order to protect themselves.
It's too vague and needs to be re-written, not by the NRA or by politicians owned by the NRA.
..like that'll happen.

Technically, the muskets and cannons used during that time were even on both sides. To make the 2nd apply now, we the people should have access to everything the enemy does, just like then.

But I'm willing to be reasonable....

..a well regulated militia, not just any ole citizen, or unregulated backwoods militia. And if it's the US military they're afraid of, because of the fear that the President's coming to take away their guns, I hope they have a lot of canned peaches and a well-stocked bunker.
I'm pretty sure the rest of us don't want to live in a war zone.

[csrowan]

You and I have a fundamental difference in how we view firearms. I do not equate the right to own weapons with the right to worship or the right to free speech in any way.

I feel that the right to own things whose sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire is not nearly as important as the right to be able to express your opinions of the government and society or act in a manner you feel to be moral (absent harm to others, of course).

And even so, there are already limits on what we will allow people to do in the name of religion and limits on what people can say, usually based on whether it has the capacity to harm other people or incite them to harm. And as our definition of harm changes, so do the rules on what is or isn't protected.

Why should the same not hold true for firearms?

A right is a right. Your assessment that an assault weapons sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire
is your assessment not mine.

Your assessment doesn't even make sense but what's new with people ignorant about weapons. (BTW not an insult or put down)

fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire


dangerous projectiles WTH they're just bullets.

high speed and high rate of fire

High speed?? what? other guns don't have bullets that go as fast? high rate of fire?

The rate of fire is as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like any other semi automatic weapon.

Your continued misinterpretations of what I say are becoming very bothersome.



Let's take a look at what I actually said:

I feel that the right to own things whose sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire is not nearly as important as the right to be able to express your opinions of the government and society or act in a manner you feel to be moral (absent harm to others, of course)."

Please tell me how "things whose sole purpose is to fire dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire" means specifically assault weapons.

I said it the way I did because I wanted to impress upon you how I view these things. I view guns as machines capable of firing dangerous projectiles at high speed and high rate of fire. That's their job.

If you had bothered to actually read what I wrote without distorting it on a completely erroneous assumption, you'd realize that I merely said "I think that the right to own guns is less important than the right to free speech or freedom of religion."



And I went on to say:

And even so, there are already limits on what we will allow people to do in the name of religion and limits on what people can say, usually based on whether it has the capacity to harm other people or incite them to harm. And as our definition of harm changes, so do the rules on what is or isn't protected.

Why should the same not hold true for firearms?

[orygunluvr]

The Second Amendment wasn't written in the time of assault weapons. Most people had muskets and pitchforks.
And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't specifically say people have the right to own assault weapons in order to protect themselves.
It's too vague and needs to be re-written, not by the NRA or by politicians owned by the NRA.
..like that'll happen.

Technically, the muskets and cannons used during that time were even on both sides. To make the 2nd apply now, we the people should have access to everything the enemy does, just like then.

But I'm willing to be reasonable....

..a well regulated militia, not just any ole citizen, or unregulated backwoods militia. And if it's the US military they're afraid of, because of the fear that the President's coming to take away their guns, I hope they have a lot of canned peaches and a well-stocked bunker.
I'm pretty sure the rest of us don't want to live in a war zone.

The citizens were the militia. They were the first fighters against the British. The militia were the first to fire shots in the War of Independence.

[Willie Krash]

I still can't open carry sticks of dynamite and that pisses me off. My suitcase nuke is my right as well in case I need to fight the tyranny.
If we could go after the capitalist that search employees cars and fire them for having weapons in their cars, legal weapons. They are firing people who refuse to allow their cars searched. Why are they disarming employees. What are they up too? What next? Armed company guys watching us while we work? Has this happened before. Call in the Pinkerton men.

[orygunluvr]

You need a new a schtick willie.

[chuck white]

I still can't open carry sticks of dynamite and that pisses me off. My suitcase nuke is my right as well in case I need to fight the tyranny.
If we could go after the capitalist that search employees cars and fire them for having weapons in their cars, legal weapons. They are firing people who refuse to allow their cars searched. Why are they disarming employees. What are they up too? What next? Armed company guys watching us while we work? Has this happened before. Call in the Pinkerton men.

Don't park your car on the company property and they can't search it.

[tvguy]

I still can't open carry sticks of dynamite and that pisses me off. My suitcase nuke is my right as well in case I need to fight the tyranny.
If we could go after the capitalist that search employees cars and fire them for having weapons in their cars, legal weapons. They are firing people who refuse to allow their cars searched. Why are they disarming employees. What are they up too? What next? Armed company guys watching us while we work? Has this happened before. Call in the Pinkerton men.

If one can equate and assault rifle to sticks of dynamite or a suitcase nuke then you would have a point.
I can't and you don't

The rest of your post is a mystery.

[Larry]

The Second Amendment wasn't written in the time of assault weapons. Most people had muskets and pitchforks.
And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't specifically say people have the right to own assault weapons in order to protect themselves.
It's too vague and needs to be re-written, not by the NRA or by politicians owned by the NRA.
..like that'll happen.

Technically, the muskets and cannons used during that time were even on both sides. To make the 2nd apply now, we the people should have access to everything the enemy does, just like then.

But I'm willing to be reasonable....

..a well regulated militia, not just any ole citizen, or unregulated backwoods militia. And if it's the US military they're afraid of, because of the fear that the President's coming to take away their guns, I hope they have a lot of canned peaches and a well-stocked bunker.
I'm pretty sure the rest of us don't want to live in a war zone.

The meaning of words and phrases means something. BECAUSE the Government has a well regulated militia, is the REASON the founders deemed it necessary to not disarm the public.

[PonderThis]

The Second Amendment wasn't written in the time of assault weapons. Most people had muskets and pitchforks.
And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't specifically say people have the right to own assault weapons in order to protect themselves.
It's too vague and needs to be re-written, not by the NRA or by politicians owned by the NRA.
..like that'll happen.

Technically, the muskets and cannons used during that time were even on both sides. To make the 2nd apply now, we the people should have access to everything the enemy does, just like then.

But I'm willing to be reasonable....

If this argument was true, it seems your right to keep and roll cannons might have become enshrined in the constitution too then. I notice it's not.

[orygunluvr]

The Second Amendment wasn't written in the time of assault weapons. Most people had muskets and pitchforks.
And the Second Amendment certainly doesn't specifically say people have the right to own assault weapons in order to protect themselves.
It's too vague and needs to be re-written, not by the NRA or by politicians owned by the NRA.
..like that'll happen.

Technically, the muskets and cannons used during that time were even on both sides. To make the 2nd apply now, we the people should have access to everything the enemy does, just like then.

But I'm willing to be reasonable....

If this argument was true, it seems your right to keep and roll cannons might have become enshrined in the constitution too then. I notice it's not.

We can own cannons.

[bbqboy]

I still can't open carry sticks of dynamite and that pisses me off. My suitcase nuke is my right as well in case I need to fight the tyranny.
If we could go after the capitalist that search employees cars and fire them for having weapons in their cars, legal weapons. They are firing people who refuse to allow their cars searched. Why are they disarming employees. What are they up too? What next? Armed company guys watching us while we work? Has this happened before. Call in the Pinkerton men.

If one can equate and assault rifle to sticks of dynamite or a suitcase nuke then you would have a point.
I can't and you don't

The rest of your post is a mystery.

You need to keep up on current events then. And where would YOU draw the line?
What's wrong with dynamite or a suitcase nuke?