• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gun Control Means Using Both Hands

I

im2smrt4u

Golden Member
"Gun Control Means Using Both Hands". I saw this on the back of a truck today and I thought I would start a flamefe...er...discussion (yea, discusion!) on what people think about gun control.

Honestly, from my limited studies of the creation of the US government (read, government class in H.S.) it seems like the right to bear arms means anything and everything: from knives to assault rifles. It seems to me that the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to overthrow a dictator if the US government ever became corrupt (well, worse than now!), like England was. What does everyone else think?

/me puts on asbestos suit

EDIT: Damn smilies! :Q
 
While I don't think our country's gun control rules need much changing, I will state that "the right to bear arms" was created in a time when there was constant threat of attack and no organized government military. It *should* have read "the right to bear arms for purpose of serving in a militia to defend the country" but good luck getting anyone to change it.
 
lol, both hands... that is cool. I only use guns for target practicing and don't own one myself, but I think people should be allowed to have them, especially when using them with both hands 🙂

-spike
 


<< While I don't think our country's gun control rules need much changing, I will state that "the right to bear arms" was created in a time when there was constant threat of attack and no organized government military. It *should* have read "the right to bear arms for purpose of serving in a militia to defend the country" but good luck getting anyone to change it. >>




there will be a time in the future when our gov't's actions will no longer be tolerated and you will be glad it didnt read that way.
 
Guns are designed for one purpose - to KILL. The average citizen is too stupid to be allowed that power. Only police and the military should be allowed to own deadly weapons. If we banned guns in the hands of private citizens, crime would go away and we could all live peacefully without fear.

Russ, NCNE
 


<< It *should* have read "the right to bear arms for purpose of serving in a militia to defend the country" >>

I used to think so, until I read a few letters by our founding fathers. Some of their quotes make it very clear that they intended gun ownership to be an individaul right, not something reserved for militias. Hopefully someone who has those quotes bookmarked/recorded somewhere can post them, I would very much like to see them again.
 
amnesiac 2.0

And what are your credentials that allow you to second guess the Founding Fathers? You are typical idiot imho....:disgust:
 
Tsk, tsk, Russ, you forgot your Moonbeam-esque signature.

I will state that "the right to bear arms" was created in a time when there was constant threat of attack and no organized government military. It *should* have read "the right to bear arms for purpose of serving in a militia to defend the country" but good luck getting anyone to change it.

It never will be changed, nor should it. If the government wants to try Amending the Constitution, go for it, but no way will 2/3rds of the country vote for it.
 


<< there will be a time in the future when our gov't's actions will no longer be tolerated and you will be glad it didnt read that way. >>



That is the same way I feel! It just seems that our rights are being taken away little by little...

Not that I'm complaining about the US government, but the whole idea of the USA is that when people don't like things, they get them changed! 🙂
 
I know that it is impossible to illegalize guns (to the public) even if they could get the majority to approve such a bill or law. Illegalizing guns would only be bad for the innocent and good for the criminals because the criminals will still be able to get guns because they're already out and around, and the innocent, common folk would not have access to them to protect themselves. Here's something to think about though: I know of a town here in Georgia (forgot name of town but its north of Atlanta). Anyways, in this town it is the law that every house has a gun, well in this neighborhood at least. At first i thought, "what an idiotic law!!" Then I realized it could actually be a pretty good idea. Think about it, if you had a choice between robbing a house which you KNEW there was a gun, or a house in which you weren't sure whether there was a gun, which house would you rob??
 
if you take guns away from legit citizens the criminals are still gonna be able to get guns


i mean stricter gun laws aren't really doing anything, like the criminals were really planning on following the rules anyway
 
It just seems that our rights are being taken away little by little...

If campaign finance reform is signed into law - guess what? Congress has just legislated an Amendment to the Constitution, without voter approval. If that happens they might get a few ideas about any or all of the other Amendments.

Hopefully Bush will do the stand-up thing and veto the piece of shi#. If he doesn't, he's lost my vote, and my support.
 
If campaign finance reform is signed into law - guess what? Congress has just legislated an Amendment to the Constitution, without voter approval. If that happens they might get a few ideas about any or all of the other Amendments.

which amendment is that?
 
Gun control does not mean using two hands. It means hitting your target. If you hit your target while only using one hand, you have succeeded in controling your gun. However, for most people, gun control does indeed mean using both hands.
 


<< Only police and the military should be allowed to own deadly weapons. If we banned guns in the hands of private citizens, crime would go away and we could all live peacefully without fear. >>



I sure would like to believe that, but what about all of the criminals!? The wouldn't care about the law, and then all of the law-abiding citizens would be at the mercy of anyone who could get access to an illegal gun.

Somehow, it seems like if everyone was alowed to carry a weapon, then people would learn not to f*ck around with other people because they are afraid they will get shot!
 


<< I know of a town here in Georgia (forgot name of town but its north of Atlanta). Anyways, in this town it is the law that every house has a gun >>



Kennesaw.

Russ, NCNE
 
which amendment is that?

The First, of course.

As written, the bill prohibits any advertisements from being run for 60 or 90 days before a campaign, depending on what type. The Supreme Court has already handed down decisions that state that money when in regards to election, is equivalent to speech. What does this mean? This means that special interest groups can't run ads against an incumbent before an election - groups like the ACLU, NRA, AARP, etc., et al. This means that unless you have a special affiliation with the news media (they are exempted from the law) you will not be able to state your feelings on a candidate before an election.
 


<<

<< I know of a town here in Georgia (forgot name of town but its north of Atlanta). Anyways, in this town it is the law that every house has a gun >>



Kennesaw.

Russ, NCNE >>


Thats the one...Thanks Russ...
 


<< Hopefully Bush will do the stand-up thing and veto the piece of shi#. If he doesn't, he's lost my vote, and my support. >>



He will sign it into law if both houses pass it...it is bound to fail in the courts....The American Public is so ill informed on this and other issues that they are for both Gun Control and Campaign Finance Reform.

Any thinking person knows it will fail constitutional muster in the courts [That's why GW will sign the bill.]. However thanks to the Liberal Media's promotion of the bill it just might pass.
Remember that the amendments and their history are not taught in public schools.
 
Fortunately, if someone came in my home, I can use whatever means necessary to protect my wife and children. If this means I would have to kill another, so be it. If deprived of a gun, I could find an equally effective, but nastier means to do so. That said, I am glad I am able to sleep better at night knowing my family is safer than they otherwise would be.
 
There is actually a town where the law says every house has to have a gun? :Q


Here in MA it seems that everything possible is done to keep people from carrying legal weapons
 


<< Guns are designed for one purpose - to KILL. The average citizen is too stupid to be allowed that power. Only police and the military should be allowed to own deadly weapons. If we banned guns in the hands of private citizens, crime would go away and we could all live peacefully without fear.

Russ, NCNE >>


Or we should ban them from stupid people...make people take an IQ test before they were allowed to buy one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top