"Nobody is trying to take your guns away"

[tvguy]

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.

That's what I was going to say

[orygunluvr]

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?

Nothing, until some rabid leftist gets a hold of them.

[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.

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?

Dynamite or a suitcase nukes have nothing whatsoever to do with a rifle. It's an ignorant comparison.
I don't care about who draws what line.
I care about the fact that people actually believe the hysteria about assault weapons.

I have the right to keep and bear arms. An assault weapon is an arm. A very common weapon legally owned by tens of millions of Americans.

I don't care about dipshit analogies designed to confuse the issue.

[bbqboy]

Where does it mention rifles in the constitution? What is the definition of well armed?
BTW, here's the most recent story on employees and guns.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/...ed-robber/


here's another:
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/gener...-work.html

[tvguy]

Where does it mention rifles in the constitution? What is the definition of well armed?
BTW, here's the most recent story on employees and guns.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/...ed-robber/


here's another:
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/gener...-work.html

So when they used the term "well armed what do you suppose they meant? a cap gun?
Well armed means just that in my opinion. What was considered to be well armed then would have most likely been the best rifle on the market.

Today should be the same thing. I'm not well armed if all I have is a bolt action rifle or a shotgun if my opponent has a semi auto rifle.

[bbqboy]

That's your opinion. How do you know what the founding fathers meant anymore than anyone else?

[tvguy]

That's your opinion. How do you know what the founding fathers meant anymore than anyone else?

I don't, so I have to use common sense. Well armed to me means the same thing today as it did then.

The term "well armed" to me is a relative term.

[bbqboy]

Well armed to me means a suitcase nuke. That would keep the government invaders on their toes.

[tvguy]

Well armed to me means a suitcase nuke. That would keep the government invaders on their toes.

You are being absurd. I am not. When people start asking for the right to own suitcase nukes then we should be discussing them.

I don't consider the text of the second amendment to mean that I have a right to own any weapon that our current military has. I think that's just bullshit the anti gun people come up with.

I want the right to keep and bear a rifle that people call an assault rifle.

[PonderThis]

I think having my own nuclear weapon would be a great deterrent. Government, don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

[tvguy]

I think having my own nuclear weapon would be a great deterrent. Government, don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

Isn't that exactly why no one fires nukes at anyone else?

[Crazylace]

I don't consider the text of the second amendment to mean that I have a right to own any weapon that our current military has. I think that's just bullshit the anti gun people come up with.

I want the right to keep and bear a rifle that people call an assault rifle.

And I think John Adams would be right there with you in regards to that right.
And basically, I don't have a problem with responsible gun owners having and collecting guns and ammo.
The problem seems to be that there are many irresponsible gun owners who allow others access to their guns, don't properly lock up their guns, or don't obtain their guns legally. This is why we need gun control, not to take away property, but to make sure the public is more protected against the ones who are illegally operating guns and firearms.
Is this a drag for responsible gun owners? I bet it is.
I do however think I understand the flip side of the argument. Responsible owners aren't the ones shooting up classrooms and we have every right to protect ourselves and our family..I mean, it's our family, right?
Whats good is we're having a discussion.

[Willie Krash]

You need a new a schtick willie.

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.

It's not just me needing a new schtick OL. many fire arms are not legal to own and we keep repeating the second admendment as if all guns were legal.
TV, the second amendment does not say a word about guns. Bear arms, if you can pick it you can bear arms.
To the two of you it is more about what does the second admendment mean.
Some see it as being absolute, others see another way. Is a bombers right to bear arms being infringed?
Chuck is right don't park in the company parking lot. To bad they didn't inform the employees before hand and this is another example of how those rights can be infringed. Make sure your defense of the country (or for some the attack) is on your day off..

[Willie Krash]

I think having my own nuclear weapon would be a great deterrent. Government, don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

Isn't that exactly why no one fires nukes at anyone else?

So MAD works until it doesn't. Iran needs nukes in the context of this debate.

[Larry]

The bottom line here is, YES, there are some who want to totally disarm EVERYONE. So stop denying that the idea exists.

Compromise was reached long ago, as there are many arms denied to the public already.

The issue at hand is, do we compromise more, and make illegal a type of weapon that is responsible for 2-3% of gun deaths, as a token to pretend it will accomplish a single life being saved?

Long odds over a strawgun argument.


But when you think about the long road and incrementalism, this would be a perfect launching pad for those who want to take it all.

And you wonder why gun owners might be a little skittish by it all?

[Simon Peter]

To the two of you it is more about what does the second admendment mean.

There is no question about what it means. The only question left is how much lead and how many lives need to be wasted before the child king is removed from his throne.

[Larry]

To the two of you it is more about what does the second admendment mean.

There is no question about what it means. The only question left is how much lead and how many lives need to be wasted before the child king is removed from his throne.

Jesus H Christ, YOU are part of the problem.

[PonderThis]

You guys all suffer from image problems brought on by yourselves.

[Simon Peter]

To the two of you it is more about what does the second admendment mean.

There is no question about what it means. The only question left is how much lead and how many lives need to be wasted before the child king is removed from his throne.

Jesus H Christ, YOU are part of the problem.

No, the solution. No sheeple here.

Note: i have not entered these gun disscussions because the decisions being made evidently do not involve me but do involve a bunch of windbags I give not a poo about. My concern is what will i do and when not what will i say while i stand by and watch.

[Willie Krash]

The bottom line here is, YES, there are some who want to totally disarm EVERYONE. So stop denying that the idea exists.

Compromise was reached long ago, as there are many arms denied to the public already.

The issue at hand is, do we compromise more, and make illegal a type of weapon that is responsible for 2-3% of gun deaths, as a token to pretend it will accomplish a single life being saved?

Long odds over a strawgun argument.


But when you think about the long road and incrementalism, this would be a perfect launching pad for those who want to take it all.

And you wonder why gun owners might be a little skittish by it all?

Larry I take your point. OTOH there needs to be a discussion and the minority will not prevail. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy,

"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.."

We could argue gun rights have been eroded but the SCOTUS makes the case otherwise.

Sal Esquivel makes an unintended point regarding this in today's paper.

"We need to re-examine the reasons we declare different areas "gun free" zones. Does it make any sense that our schools and theaters are "gun free" zones and then not expect those areas to be targeted?"

Being dead is the ultimate loss of freedom. The above statement by Sal speaks volumes. Huston, we have a problem and it's time to talk about it.