[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) [/quote]
LOL…I view you with contempt.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.[/quote]
You have a “feeling”… Well, I guess that settles it then. Thanks for letting us keep some guns though. That’s nice of you.
[/quote]
You are very welcome, my feeling is much the same as your interpretation of the 2nd, only different and rooted in common sense.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.[/quote]
Some hunting rifles?
Why do you view handguns with contempt?
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit. [/quote]
The problem with looking at intent, guessing that an assumption is correct, and treating the decisions that result as law, is that it renders the Constitution meaningless. At that point(which we are past), you are no longer a nation of laws, but of men. The Constitution offered a solution that did not render itself meaningless: Amendment. Technological advances surely change things; such advancements sometimes create issues that justify amending the Constitution.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.[/quote]
You have a “feeling”… Well, I guess that settles it then. Thanks for letting us keep some guns though. That’s nice of you.
[/quote]
You are very welcome, my feeling is much the same as your interpretation of the 2nd, only different and rooted in common sense.[/quote]
Lol, whatever you say.
I guess no one is going to read the 27 page paper I posted.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.[/quote]
Profound.[/quote]
Thank you Push.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) [/quote]
LOL…I view you with contempt.
[/quote]
ZEB,
Come on now, I didn’t insult you.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.[/quote]
Some hunting rifles?
Why do you view handguns with contempt?
[/quote]
Bismark,
I have a few friends from the Army that will hunt with automatic weapons because “it’s fun and easy”. People have a tendency to classify weapons in a way that suits them, if you are a hunter you probably don’t need an automatic weapon popping off 10 rounds per second and if you do you probably shouldn’t be hunting.
Handguns don’t serve much of a purpose other than killing people so I don’t see a huge reason for them to be so prevalent in todays society. I get that there are a shit ton of them out there already but that shouldn’t be a roadblock to putting much more severe restrictions on their production and sale.
On a personal note I also hate handguns because when I was in the Army I couldn’t shoot one worth a damn so there’s that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
You are very welcome, my feeling is much the same as your interpretation of the 2nd, only different and rooted in common sense.[/quote]
[/quote]
Push,
You should invest in new clip art, maybe drive one of your many Corvettes down to Office Max…oh wait you bought the guns instead, got it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now it’s up to you to concede that gun rights cannot be restricted by invoking “Papers, please comrade.”[/quote]
That’s nonsensical sophistry. The fact is that the state legislatures, in exercising their sovereignty, have tried to create such restrictions through the prescribed legislative process. And their attempts to assert such sovereignty have been thwarted by a special interest group trying to force their narrow, interested view of the 2nd Amendment down everyone’s throat.
Common sense tells us that when people who, in retrospect, had no business purchasing guns but were able to do so legally, it may be time to examine the ways in which people get their hands on these things.
Your attitude, prior to your concession in this thread, can simply be boiled down to a very simply statement: “I don’t give a fuck how many guns and what type of guns criminally-minded people have access to as long as I have access to them as well.” Wonderful.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) [/quote]
LOL…I view you with contempt.
[/quote]
I react that way to most who don’t understand guns, the 2nd amendment and are generally young and foolish. (If you are not young then you really have no excuse)
ZEB,
Come on now, I didn’t insult you, so why do you have to immediately come across like a little bitch? [/quote]
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
Handguns don’t serve much of a purpose other than killing people so I don’t see a huge reason for them to be so prevalent in todays society.[/quote]
LOL…again with the stupid talk. You don’t think they serve much of a purpose except for killing people? (eye roll). That is the idea. If a bad guy tries to kill me I will indeed use it on them. To kill them…get it? It is for personal defense…for killing. Stop blaming the tool and blame the user of that tool.
So you are against the second amendment. Are there any other parts of the constitution that you’d like to randomly remove?
Ah…I see well that’s a good reason to attack the second amendment. You suck at shooting handguns. Here’s an idea and I mean this sincerely. Practice and you’ll get better at it. And if you don’t care to practice keep in mind that there are many of us here in America that enjoy pistol shooting and are quite proficient at it. I’ve had my hand gun license for over half my life. I’ve never harmed anyone with them and find that going to the range is fun and I’ve carried it concealed many, many times in areas where I felt it was necessary.
You don’t like handguns so you’re ready to take that right away from the rest of us who are responsible gun owners?
You are no better than Obama or Hillary…okay that was probably incorrect. Let’s say on this topic you are no better than most left wing nuts who want to restrict hand gun use in America.
One more point, do you really think the bad guys will obey the law? They will go out on a Saturday night and for a few buck purchase their own ILLEGAL hand gun. And they are buying the gun to use against those of us who, if it were up to you, would be defenseless. Also, with the terrorist threat becoming more prevalent you should think twice before disarming honest gun owning citizens.
One more point for those to consider that want to restrict hand guns. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Yet, they continue to have over the top rates of violent crime with the use of hand guns. It must be that the criminals don’t know that it’s illegal to carry a gun.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
I have a feeling that the 2nd Amendment didn’t intend to cover “everything”, I would guess that with their minimal grasp of technology and lack of any real concept of future weapons development the founding fathers surely wouldn’t have imagined nukes, rail guns, attack helicopters etc. So I think the 2nd amendment needs to be dialed back a bit.
I still think we should be able to own some guns for instance shotguns, SOME hunting rifles, maybe a handgun (though I view them with contempt) and that sort of reasonable shit but a Barret .50 cal, an M60, tanks, lasers, grenades, claymore mines, nuclear subs etc is just a way to compensate for a little dick and should be replaced with a sports car.[/quote]
Some hunting rifles?
Why do you view handguns with contempt?
[/quote]
Bismark,
I have a few friends from the Army that will hunt with automatic weapons because “it’s fun and easy”. People have a tendency to classify weapons in a way that suits them, if you are a hunter you probably don’t need an automatic weapon popping off 10 rounds per second and if you do you probably shouldn’t be hunting.
Handguns don’t serve much of a purpose other than killing people so I don’t see a huge reason for them to be so prevalent in todays society. I get that there are a shit ton of them out there already but that shouldn’t be a roadblock to putting much more severe restrictions on their production and sale.
On a personal note I also hate handguns because when I was in the Army I couldn’t shoot one worth a damn so there’s that.[/quote]
I find that hard to believe.
Man has an inherent right to self defense, and handguns serve that purpose in a civil and free society such as our own.
MOS?
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
Handguns don’t serve much of a purpose other than killing people so I don’t see a huge reason for them to be so prevalent in todays society. I get that there are a shit ton of them out there already but that shouldn’t be a roadblock to putting much more severe restrictions on their production and sale.
[/quote]
A friend of mine was out on his land getting things ready for the upcoming hunting season. His handgun probably saved his life when he unloaded the clip into a charging hog. At the very least it saved him from some serious injuries. So, there’s that too.
No one hunts with a fully automatic rifles, that’s absurd.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No one hunts with a fully automatic rifles, that’s absurd.
[/quote]
No one hunts GAME with fully automatic rifles, but radical Islamic terrorists hunt infidels with them.