2nd amendment?

[PokerPacker]

what if one day, the government knocks on your door looking to kill you? will you be safer if you are unarmed, or have an army of neighbors with AK's?

[PokerPacker]

You dont think you'd be able to handle an intruder with a shotgun?

and risk stray shot hitting your family?

[PleaseBlitz]

what if one day, the government knocks on your door looking to kill you? will you be safer if you are unarmed, or have an army of neighbors with AK's?

And why would they do that? We arent living in freaking 1930's Russia here. When is the last time you heard about "the government" knocking on someone you knows door? Give me a break.

and risk stray shot hitting your family?

Right, as opposed to a stray bullet from a fully automatic AK? Load it with slugs.

[Redskins Diehard]

My own personal viewpoint is that the Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms. I also think that it is perfectly reasonable to place some restrictions on this right.

But I do get a chuckle out of the arguments that say something along the lines of "we've got to have guns...otherwise the government will have their way with us". Let me tell you something, if the government wants to have its way with you...it will. To think that Joe Citizen has the financial means and firearms training to even "hold off" a local police department is laughable, let alone the tactical teams of any number of federal agencies. And that does not even bring the best trained and equiped military in the world. Ask the street thugs in New Orleans how they fared when confronted with 8-10 well trained members of our military. And how did owning a few automatic weapons work out for Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge and for the David Koresh and the other Davidians in Waco.

Like I said, I support responsible gun ownership as a means of protecting yourself, your family, and to a certain extent your property against the criminal element. To think you are protecting yourself from the government is pretty misguided on a number of levels.

[Redskins Diehard]

It would have been funny if the republican hit one of his fellow republicans accidently. But alas, the bullet went into an object or something.

Actually Fred I don't think it would have been "funny" if a fellow Republican or a Democrat, or an Independent, or someone that didn't even know what they were, were hit. Now if you had been there and been hit....

[Winslowalrob]

Too complicated an issue, some cool debate on this. I have very mixed feelings about the issue, it is not black and white (Imagine that!), but some of the logic here is inconsistent. Hopefully a lot of people here will find a middle ground of what is acceptable armament ownership. It is cool seeing my assumptions of people's beliefs not meeting reality.

[PokerPacker]

And why would they do that? We arent living in freaking 1930's Russia here. When is the last time you heard about "the government" knocking on someone you knows door? Give me a break.

Right, as opposed to a stray bullet from a fully automatic AK? Load it with slugs.

every day, the government takes away more of our rights and increases its own privlages. it has become that the government runs the people, as opposed to the way it was supposed to be, the people running the government. if this continues for several years, this could very well be the case.

secondly, why shouldn't we be allowed to have a handgun for home defence? they are easier to access if we don't have much time. there is no stray fire, and the bullet should stay inside the "victim" instead of continuing into a family member.

[Sarge]

You dont think you'd be able to handle an intruder with a shotgun?

Shotgun is too messy and inaccurate for home defense.

Now my HK .357 with the laser sight, that puts a bullet right where I want it to go, and with a low grain load I can put down some piece of human flotsam and not worry about the bullet going through 10 walls.

[Sarge]

And why would they do that? We arent living in freaking 1930's Russia here. When is the last time you heard about "the government" knocking on someone you knows door? Give me a break.

1992 Ruby Ridge Idaho

[Sarge]

But I do get a chuckle out of the arguments that say something along the lines of "we've got to have guns...otherwise the government will have their way with us". Let me tell you something, if the government wants to have its way with you...it will. To think that Joe Citizen has the financial means and firearms training to even "hold off" a local police department is laughable, let alone the tactical teams of any number of federal agencies. And that does not even bring the best trained and equiped military in the world. Ask the street thugs in New Orleans how they fared when confronted with 8-10 well trained members of our military. And how did owning a few automatic weapons work out for Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge and for the David Koresh and the other Davidians in Waco.

That's exactly what it was meant to do. You realize the framers asserted the right of the people to throw off any government in the Declaration of Independence, right?

[Larry]

1992 Ruby Ridge Idaho

In which the big, bad, government "raided" a home which a judge had issued a warrant for, because he'd agreed that there was probably a crime being committed.

I'll admit that, in Ruby Ridge, Waco, and no doubt other locations, it could be argued that the government used excessive force to accomplish their mission.

But let's also admit that in those cases, the government had enough of a case against the "suspects" to go to a court, show a judge the evidence, and have the judge agree. (Although, from what I recall, the way the government got the warrant in Waco was to tell the judge that they had a witness that said they had a .50 cal machine gun in there (and they did, in fact, have such a witness), but they failed to mention that they had a permit for the weapon.)

(But if I'm not mistaken, Randy Weaver was, in fact, guilty as charged, wasn't he? IIR, the warrant accused him of illegally posessing automatic weapons which he did, in fact, have, didn't he?)

[Sarge]

In which the big, bad, government "raided" a home which a judge had issued a warrant for, because he'd agreed that there was probably a crime being committed.

I'll admit that, in Ruby Ridge, Waco, and no doubt other locations, it could be argued that the government used excessive force to accomplish their mission.

But let's also admit that in those cases, the government had enough of a case against the "suspects" to go to a court, show a judge the evidence, and have the judge agree. (Although, from what I recall, the way the government got the warrant in Waco was to tell the judge that they had a witness that said they had a .50 cal machine gun in there (and they did, in fact, have such a witness), but they failed to mention that they had a permit for the weapon.)

(But if I'm not mistaken, Randy Weaver was, in fact, guilty as charged, wasn't he? IIR, the warrant accused him of illegally posessing automatic weapons which he did, in fact, have, didn't he?)

Don't think so. In fact, I seeem to recall that his surviing family members won several million dollars from the government for their tactics

[luckydevil]

The Constitution is a document that was set up to be able to evolve, thats what makes it great.

Got to love the living constitution argument.

So in other words,the constitution, decided by those in power, means whatever it ought to mean at any given time. A constitution that can be interpreted to mean the opposite of those who drafted it intended is no constitution at all. What a farce.

I love when people on this board selectively decide to be constitutionalists. It's rather amusing.

[Johnny Punani2]

And why would they do that? We arent living in freaking 1930's Russia here. When is the last time you heard about "the government" knocking on someone you knows door? Give me a break.

Right, as opposed to a stray bullet from a fully automatic AK? Load it with slugs.

But the government had no problem driving a ****ing tank into Waco and shooting up the place and setting it on fire. The government also didn't have much of a problem putting a bullet in the head of a woman holding her baby on her front porch at ruby ridge or a SWAT team breaking into the house of people who didn't break any laws to get Elian Gonzalez.

You're stupid...

[Johnny Punani2]

In which the big, bad, government "raided" a home which a judge had issued a warrant for, because he'd agreed that there was probably a crime being committed.

I'll admit that, in Ruby Ridge, Waco, and no doubt other locations, it could be argued that the government used excessive force to accomplish their mission.

But let's also admit that in those cases, the government had enough of a case against the "suspects" to go to a court, show a judge the evidence, and have the judge agree. (Although, from what I recall, the way the government got the warrant in Waco was to tell the judge that they had a witness that said they had a .50 cal machine gun in there (and they did, in fact, have such a witness), but they failed to mention that they had a permit for the weapon.)

(But if I'm not mistaken, Randy Weaver was, in fact, guilty as charged, wasn't he? IIR, the warrant accused him of illegally posessing automatic weapons which he did, in fact, have, didn't he?)

Of course Larry and other Libs try and blow it off like it was nothing or the people involved had it coming to them. I watched then Rep. Charles Schumer defend the government no matter what evidence was shown. Dems and Libs talk about "civil rights" but they are full of happy horse****. When they are in power rights only matter when they have something to gain.

[Larry]

But the government had no problem driving a ****ing tank into Waco and shooting up the place and setting it on fire. The government also didn't have much of a problem putting a bullet in the head of a woman holding her baby on her front porch at ruby ridge or a SWAT team breaking into the house of people who didn't break any laws to get Elian Gonzalez.

You're stupid...

I haven't seen any evidence (nor do I believe) that the government set that building on fire intentionally.

And while I do believe that the government's correct response at Waco would've been to wait them out, I do have to point out: The cops, in uniform, had taken automatic weapons fire, from multiple weapons, from inside that building. They'd surrounded the place and attempted to negotiate, and not one person had chosen (or been permitted) to come out.

They certainly had the right, if they decided to "go in" (which I disagree with), to go in hard.

You mean, aside from every single person in that house being a kidnapper? That law?

[Larry]

Of course Larry and other Libs try and blow it off like it was nothing or the people involved had it coming to them.

I have said neither.

I have, in fact, said that the police were wrong in both cases.

What I have said is that neither of those cases involves an innocent homeowner who was just watching TV and obeying the law.

[Sarge]

I have said neither.

I have, in fact, said that the police were wrong in both cases.

What I have said is that neither of those cases involves an innocent homeowner who was just watching TV and obeying the law.

That could very easliy have been next,especially with clinton, whose focus was "domestic terrorists". How many of those have you seen since clinton left office?

[Larry]

That could very easliy have been next,especially with clinton, whose focus was "domestic terrorists". How many of those have you seen since clinton left office?

Oh, the possible responses:

• But I thought Clinton didn't care about terrorism. All he did was make terrorism the #1 priority of his daily briefing. (Untill Bush took over, and declared that terrorism wasn't that big a deal, and what can you tell me about Iraq?)
  
• Yeah, you're right. Clinton really had a thing about ignoring the Constitution and declaring himself dictator, didn't he? Glad Bush released all those people Clinton made disapear.
  
• I remember exactly one case of "domestic terrorism" (in the sense of "within the boarders of the US") since Clinton left office. The exact same number as occurred while he was in office.
  
• Or, if you mean "domestic" in the sense of "performed by americans", then well, using the standards of the GOP, whatever Clinton did must have been completely justified, because it hasn't happened since, right?
  

[PleaseBlitz]

Got to love the living constitution argument.

So in other words,the constitution, decided by those in power, means whatever it ought to mean at any given time. A constitution that can be interpreted to mean the opposite of those who drafted it intended is no constitution at all. What a farce.

I love when people on this board selectively decide to be constitutionalists. It's rather amusing.

Thats great. Lets base our entire system of government on a document written over 200 years ago EXACTLY as it was written. Why do we even have a Supreme Court?

If the Constitution was not able to be changed the women and black people wouldnt be allowed to vote.

[PleaseBlitz]

But the government had no problem driving a ****ing tank into Waco and shooting up the place and setting it on fire. The government also didn't have much of a problem putting a bullet in the head of a woman holding her baby on her front porch at ruby ridge or a SWAT team breaking into the house of people who didn't break any laws to get Elian Gonzalez.

You're stupid...

Well its a good thing they had all those guns to defend themselves from "the man." Worked out well for them.......

[Larry]

Thats great. Lets base our entire system of government on a document written over 200 years ago EXACTLY as it was written. Why do we even have a Supreme Court?

If the Constitution was not able to be changed the women and black people wouldnt be allowed to vote.

1) I'll point out, that According To Larry, they could vote. ("Equal protection" clause. Which also, to me, says that gays have been able to legally marry since the Constitution was signed.) But, lots of people don't agree with me. (It's lonely, always being right.)

2) I'll also point out that the way those two things (blacks and women voting) were changed was by Constitutional Ammendment. (Not by The President deciding that those parts didn't apply to him, and the heck with whatever it says.)

[luckydevil]

Thats great. Lets base our entire system of government on a document written over 200 years ago EXACTLY as it was written. Why do we even have a Supreme Court?

I am not against changing aspects of the constitution, as long as it goes through a legitimate process.

[PleaseBlitz]

I am not against changing aspects of the constitution, as long as it goes through a legitimate process.

Then we are in agreement.

Anyone care to get back on topic: Gun control.

[PokerPacker]

Then we are in agreement.

Anyone care to get back on topic: Gun control.

sure, the constitutions permits gun ownership :cool: