Does Obama want to ban guns and rifles?
10-07-2008, 02:21 PM
#106
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
If I want to buy three firearms in one month, I must be allowed to do so, as there is no justifiable reason/argument to the contrary.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; people have the right to own non crew served, individually operated firearms. Which covers every firearm from a pistol to an M4 assault rifle.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; people have the right to own non crew served, individually operated firearms. Which covers every firearm from a pistol to an M4 assault rifle.
"there is no justifiable reason/argument to the contrary"
Oh wow... I mean, you have demonstrated a great ability to convince yourself of that for sure. You are EXCELLENT at arguing even if there doesn't seem to be a point. I am sure whatever reason I could give you - you already have heard and have some way to disagree with it semantically.
The only comparison I can draw to this is something else I don't understand like collecting child pornography. Someone who had a basement full of kiddie **** but had not ever touched a child "has done nothing to harm anyone" but collections of that nature are generally frowned upon. Why? Because they imply something, intent of future actions? Because most people are without knowledge of a valid, honorable reason for such a collection?
I do not understand why someone would want to have a large collection of weapons designed to kill humans. I can think of reasons as to why, but they are just baseless speculation. I have never heard someone say anything beyond "because I like them" or "because I can" in regards to why, and neither one generates a sense of comfort. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND. I think guns are cool too. I am serious.
If you honestly have to question why someone would feel this way, then there is really no point in any sort of discussion. I am not saying you have to agree at all! I would like someone to tell me why they want to own a large amount of weapons that are specifically designed to kill humans. I have had loads of bad luck explaining my love of cars and mechanical things to some people, so I would be patient.
The only "gun enthusiast" I know who posesses more than a few live weapons is the father of a really good friend. He hunts every kind of animal out there and has my friend's former bed room as his gun room with more than I have been able to count. He does not have one weapon designed specifically for killing humans and when asked why he didn't have anything like that - he looked a little confused and said he had no use for one. He went on to tell me that, should he need to defend himself, he would probably be fine with his collection. Just another opinion I guess.
So I have known people who have loads of guns, I have known people who abhor guns and think all of them should be illegal (mostly Europeans) and I have known people like myself who think guns are pretty cool but don't have any... But I have never met someone such as yourself who could explain in a mature manner, without referencing the Constitution or Amendments, simply why they wanted all these guns. NOT THAT THEY NEED TO MIND YOU but just that it might make people have more compassion for the desire and potentially less wary of those of you who want to have loads of things designed to kill humans but refuse to say why because the law says you don't have to.
Another thing I wonder is this - the "machine gun" as we know it was a relatively new device at the signing of the Constitution rather than the normal household tool that it has become today. I wonder if the wording would be any different if we had the weapons we have today, back then. Of course no one knows and it would be dumb to use speculations of that point in an argument, but it is something that popped into my mind. Only because the exact wording is used so repeatedly in a manner that suggests you are implying it is OK based on what is not mentioned (such as listing a specific range of weapons, some of which were not invented then).
10-07-2008, 02:28 PM
#107
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
There's a huge difference between "regulating" and "restricting" firearm ownership.
You contend that there's no reason to overturn "regulations" that are already in effect.
I contend that most of these "regulations" are in fact "restrictions" which I find abhorrent.
100% of all firearm "regulations" are based on feelings, irrational fears, and/or a policy moving towards the general disarming of the American people.
And BTW, Obama appears to be for and against private ownership of firearms.
You contend that there's no reason to overturn "regulations" that are already in effect.
I contend that most of these "regulations" are in fact "restrictions" which I find abhorrent.
100% of all firearm "regulations" are based on feelings, irrational fears, and/or a policy moving towards the general disarming of the American people.
And BTW, Obama appears to be for and against private ownership of firearms.
10-07-2008, 02:41 PM
#108
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Should "want" not be reason enough for owning a firearm?
And until I can walk into Walmart, plunk down cash & show ID, and walk out with a new gun immediately, there's plenty to argue about.
And until I can walk into Walmart, plunk down cash & show ID, and walk out with a new gun immediately, there's plenty to argue about.
10-07-2008, 02:44 PM
#109
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
There's a huge difference between "regulating" and "restricting" firearm ownership.
You contend that there's no reason to overturn "regulations" that are already in effect.
I contend that most of these "regulations" are in fact "restrictions" which I find abhorrent.
100% of all firearm "regulations" are based on feelings, irrational fears, and/or a policy moving towards the general disarming of the American people.
And BTW, Obama appears to be for and against private ownership of firearms.
You contend that there's no reason to overturn "regulations" that are already in effect.
I contend that most of these "regulations" are in fact "restrictions" which I find abhorrent.
100% of all firearm "regulations" are based on feelings, irrational fears, and/or a policy moving towards the general disarming of the American people.
And BTW, Obama appears to be for and against private ownership of firearms.
I see the slippery slope you keep pressing on and it's completely irrational. We already know that the 2nd amendment protects our rights to bare arms. So the imagination that there will be enough loop holes around that to basically ban all guns is absurd.
And you can't fault the reasoning behind current gun regulations is you refuse to acknowledge the reasoning behind 2nd amendment. The obvious intent was to protect our rights to bare arms so that we can protect ourselves and to ensure our abilities to maintain a militia. I could use your logic and say the 2nd amendment was based on irrational and emotional fear of the govt. trying to take away our freedom.
As far as Obama's stance on guns, unless he somehow finds a way to change the bill of rights, I don't see it having an adverse affect on American life.
10-07-2008, 04:07 PM
#110
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
I guess you didn't read what I wrote. Also, nicely worded question - I almost fell for it. The semantics thing again... I notice you wrote "a firearm" again widening the context out of bounds of the discussion that was taking place so that you could derail and not actually answer the questions that were posed to you. We are not talking about someone owning "a firearm" remember? But all of that is obvious...
That is absolute insanity, and really sheds a lot of light on your comments. Here I was taking this seriously, like it was an honest discussion........ You're having a laugh. Doesn't help your "cause" unless you are just another person trying to stir up crap on a message board for no point. I am not going to pretend for a second that you seriously want anyone with an ID card and the money for it to own a weapon.
This is what happens every time this comes up, and is why you are not taken seriously - why at least I don't take you seriously. People in your position do things in which you think drives your point home, but really all it does is serve to push the differences farther apart. Don't you realize simply sharing your enthusiasm and a reason beyond "want" for owning these things might help? But then again, maybe it wouldn't... Maybe there really is 'something wrong' with someone who wants to hoard weapons solely designed for killing people efficiently. Your responses make it seem that way while I am trying to find a reason beyond "because I can" lurking in there somewhere. It seems that reason does not exist, and that, sadly, is why you apparently need the government to tell you what you can and cannot do. Once we lose the ability to determine what is right or wrong ourselves, someone else needs to do that for us. Or you, in this case.
While I am NOT in favor of the government taking our rights and liberties away, I completely understand how someone could read things that you write about this topic and then take it upon themselves to vote in the direction of "gun control" simply out of fear. While that is stupid, I cannot blame them and if you can then you are irrational. Simply put it's because they cannot think of a NON-MALICIOUS reason and you ain't offering one. It makes it seem like... There isn't one. Can you offer one?
If it were legal to do so, and I simply wanted a big *** missle pointed at your house but was not able to tell you why beyond "I want it, and there is no law that says I cannot have it so there it is." Wouldn't you wonder about my real intentions? Would my "want" for such a thing be enough to settle your concerns?
This is what happens every time this comes up, and is why you are not taken seriously - why at least I don't take you seriously. People in your position do things in which you think drives your point home, but really all it does is serve to push the differences farther apart. Don't you realize simply sharing your enthusiasm and a reason beyond "want" for owning these things might help? But then again, maybe it wouldn't... Maybe there really is 'something wrong' with someone who wants to hoard weapons solely designed for killing people efficiently. Your responses make it seem that way while I am trying to find a reason beyond "because I can" lurking in there somewhere. It seems that reason does not exist, and that, sadly, is why you apparently need the government to tell you what you can and cannot do. Once we lose the ability to determine what is right or wrong ourselves, someone else needs to do that for us. Or you, in this case.
While I am NOT in favor of the government taking our rights and liberties away, I completely understand how someone could read things that you write about this topic and then take it upon themselves to vote in the direction of "gun control" simply out of fear. While that is stupid, I cannot blame them and if you can then you are irrational. Simply put it's because they cannot think of a NON-MALICIOUS reason and you ain't offering one. It makes it seem like... There isn't one. Can you offer one?
If it were legal to do so, and I simply wanted a big *** missle pointed at your house but was not able to tell you why beyond "I want it, and there is no law that says I cannot have it so there it is." Wouldn't you wonder about my real intentions? Would my "want" for such a thing be enough to settle your concerns?
10-07-2008, 07:08 PM
#112
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Some do...how many, I do not know.
But Democrats that follow Perata's & Feistein's "do as I say, not as I do" gun control bull**** are wrong.
No...they want us commoners to be disarmed.
Obama is lying...as well is anyone that quotes that Obama is for or against firearm ownership.
He's very wobbly on this issue.
Yes, I do believe the gov't can & would go house to house.
I have friends & customers that are in law enforcement and have trained for this event.
Look at what happened in New Orleans...house to house confiscation of legally owned firearms.
So is it safe to say , then, that you would support those that have significant firearm training to own "a bunch of nutty guns"?
It does through the usage of the word "arms".
No limits are mentioned in the Constitution, so any law creating limits on amounts and/or time limits is illegal.
I have not interpreted the 2nd amendment; I have read & understand it.
I do not want to "own them all"; I want to own a select few firearms because I feel I have a need to have them.
What type of weapons are you discussing?
Firearm defined as: A rifle, shotgun or handgun using gunpowder as a propellant,
Gun, including muzzle loading firearms and modern shotguns, rifles, and handguns.
Firearm is faster to type out than "pistols, rifle, automatic rifle, and/or shotgun."
Sorry...left out the part saying that as long as I'm not a criminal or crazy.
There's no waiting period on vehicle purchases.
1. Hunting.
2. Home protection.
3. Target/competition shooting.
Have you been drinking?
"Pointing a big *** missile" at my house could be construed as a threat, which if done so unprovoked, would be illegal.
Me possessing an assault rifle...and by that I mean a select-fire rifle...in my closet/safe poses no threat to any one that is not threating me, or more importantly, my family.
Again, my point is that we should be concerned about a government that wants it's governed to be disarmed.
But Democrats that follow Perata's & Feistein's "do as I say, not as I do" gun control bull**** are wrong.
No...they want us commoners to be disarmed.
He's very wobbly on this issue.
I have friends & customers that are in law enforcement and have trained for this event.
Look at what happened in New Orleans...house to house confiscation of legally owned firearms.
Part of why I do not own a bunch of nutty guns is because I do not feel that I am capable of safely using or securing them. From my experience, I would trust other's capabilities there far less than mine until proven. Maybe that is where some of this comes from. The fact that I can acknowledge that there is a huge difference between someone who knows what they are doing with an automatic weapon and someone that doesn't, which is far and away more important than whether or not we all should have them.
No limits are mentioned in the Constitution, so any law creating limits on amounts and/or time limits is illegal.
I do not want to "own them all"; I want to own a select few firearms because I feel I have a need to have them.
I guess you didn't read what I wrote. Also, nicely worded question - I almost fell for it. The semantics thing again... I notice you wrote "a firearm" again widening the context out of bounds of the discussion that was taking place so that you could derail and not actually answer the questions that were posed to you. We are not talking about someone owning "a firearm" remember? But all of that is obvious...
Firearm defined as: A rifle, shotgun or handgun using gunpowder as a propellant,
Gun, including muzzle loading firearms and modern shotguns, rifles, and handguns.
Firearm is faster to type out than "pistols, rifle, automatic rifle, and/or shotgun."
There's no waiting period on vehicle purchases.
2. Home protection.
3. Target/competition shooting.
If it were legal to do so, and I simply wanted a big *** missile pointed at your house but was not able to tell you why beyond "I want it, and there is no law that says I cannot have it so there it is." Wouldn't you wonder about my real intentions? Would my "want" for such a thing be enough to settle your concerns?
"Pointing a big *** missile" at my house could be construed as a threat, which if done so unprovoked, would be illegal.
Me possessing an assault rifle...and by that I mean a select-fire rifle...in my closet/safe poses no threat to any one that is not threating me, or more importantly, my family.
Again, my point is that we should be concerned about a government that wants it's governed to be disarmed.
10-07-2008, 07:21 PM
#113
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
As long as you can legally own firearms, your rights are still in tact. You can infer that this extends to qualifiers such as quantity, buying frequency, etc. but it doesn't hold any more water than the opposing view that these qualifiers aren't implied.
10-07-2008, 08:36 PM
#115
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
What type of weapons are you discussing?
Firearm defined as: A rifle, shotgun or handgun using gunpowder as a propellant,
Gun, including muzzle loading firearms and modern shotguns, rifles, and handguns.
Firearm is faster to type out than "pistols, rifle, automatic rifle, and/or shotgun."
Firearm defined as: A rifle, shotgun or handgun using gunpowder as a propellant,
Gun, including muzzle loading firearms and modern shotguns, rifles, and handguns.
Firearm is faster to type out than "pistols, rifle, automatic rifle, and/or shotgun."
I would like to understand in the context of this discussion, as in, the reasons why a fully automatic weapon is better for hunting than a semi-auto. Why someone would want to enter a shooting competition. I can answer all of these questions about cars and why different parts are better, why I like different models etc. Seems like if this were a hobby, a passion, a genuine innocent desire to own tools which only purpose is to kill other humans, it could be explained.
I should mention that I do not expect you to type these things into this little text box. I would like to hear this stuff, but I understand it's not reasonable to expect it to pop up here/now.
Have you been smoking crack?
Why do you keep doing that?
And finally.... Where do you expect the government to draw the line between what someone can legally have and what they should just know they shouldn't have when it comes to things like home made nuclear devices and such? Your stated interpretation of the 2nd seems to include everything.
Last edited by wombatsauce; 10-07-2008 at 08:45 PM.
10-14-2008, 08:40 AM
#116
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
I do not understand what you're saying: "You keep doing that".
What do I keep doing?
I'm sorry that your ignorance of the Second Amendment and the Founding Fathers intentions, is preventing you from understanding the importance of the 2nd and exactly what it means.
What do I keep doing?
I'm sorry that your ignorance of the Second Amendment and the Founding Fathers intentions, is preventing you from understanding the importance of the 2nd and exactly what it means.
10-15-2008, 04:34 PM
#117
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 7,441
Car Info: 2018 Golf R Variant
Either way, don't be sorry for anyone but yourself. I understand it. You misunderstand it in ways that are dangerous to our nation. Let's just hope others learn as I have, not to take you seriously.
I would have preferred to come to an acceptance of your views even if I don't agree with them.
