Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 222

Originally posted by jhco50:

I guess they did Tenco. It seems to get all kinds of interpretation from the left.

Because the right (and middle) has never done anything like that, right?

The founding fathers were worried about government taking arms from the people who were the militia.

Not exactly.

However, this was also when the military and citizens has access to the same firearms.

That is why the amendment is in the “BILL OF RIGHTS”

Also not exactly.

Not yet it isn’t and if we in the firearms community have anything to say about it we shouldn’t get close.

Hey look at that, you specified a pronoun!

I think we’re making real progress now.

Oh, and just to remind you, Latro, it’s not because of the NRA and other gun-nuts that firearms aren’t banned.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Not exactly.

However, this was also when the military and citizens has access to the same firearms.

That is why the amendment is in the “BILL OF RIGHTS”

Also not eactly.

Not yet it isn’t and if we in the firearms community have anything to say about it we shouldn’t get close.

Hey look at that, you specified a pronoun!

I think we’re making real progress now.

Oh, and just to remind you, Latro, it’s not because of the NRA and other gun-nuts that firearms aren’t banned.

Expand on not exactly in both answers. I’m inquisitive to hear what you have to say on that.

I don’t know what latro means. You are absolutely right, society is stopping the encroachment right along with the so called gun-nuts and several gun organizations.

Originally posted by tenco1:
(Question: are tranquilizers legal?)

No.

They’re a ranged drug injection system and as such, you’d need a special permit to carry one. You’d never get hold of the rounds without it.

That’s a safety measure. You’re injecting anaesthetics into a living creature, and complications can arise from that. Anything from an allergic reaction to the drug, to an overdose stopping the heart. You need to know how to react of that occurs.

With a human target you would have the added complication that you don’t know what medication they are currently taking and how the two would interact. Non-fatal but permanently dehabilitating conditions are possible.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by tenco1:
(Question: are tranquilizers legal?)

No.

They’re a ranged drug injection system and as such, you’d need a special permit to carry one. You’d never get hold of the rounds without it.

That’s a safety measure. You’re injecting anaesthetics into a living creature, and complications can arise from that. Anything from an allergic reaction to the drug, to an overdose stopping the heart. You need to know how to react of that occurs.

With a human target you would have the added complication that you don’t know what medication they are currently taking and how the two would interact. Non-fatal but permanently dehabilitating conditions are possible.

While all of that is true, I think they do make a pill. It is also a prescribed medication.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Expand on not exactly in both answers. I’m inquisitive to hear what you have to say on that.

Well you should already know aobut the first one, as you have read exactly the first ten amendments were put in place. As for the second one, it’s because of semantics, since the amendments were not called the Bill of Rights because of one of the amendments, but because that’s what needed to be done in order to get the Constitution to pass and to get rid of the (still very broken) Articles of Confederation.

I don’t know what latro means.

It’s a reference to the main character in this book.

You are absolutely right, society is stopping the encroachment right along with the so called gun-nuts and several gun organizations.

Except it isn’t stopping any (non-existent) “encroachment,” it’s because no rational person is going to want or try to ban all guns.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

No.

Makes sense.

What ‘arms’ should be banned?
Why should rocket launchers be banned? They’re technically ‘arms’ aren’t they?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes Bobneson, we are supposed to give up our guns and when only the criminal has them we can always resort to begging for our and our familiy’s lives. We should never offer resistance and if we do try to fend off the bad guy, we must be careful not to hurt him…the poor thing.

You’re doing that just to cope, right?

… Right?

Yes, I’m trying to cope with the total lack of common sense when it comes to gun bans.

Maybe it’s time for some overveiws on this issue:
Background for the division
A good history of the 2nd Amendment
A shorter version of an explanation of the debate of guns

The actual 2nd Amend:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

NOW, what part of the “lefties’” position on REGULATION of “guns” is NOT understood in that?

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

What ‘arms’ should be banned?
Why should rocket launchers be banned? They’re technically ‘arms’ aren’t they?

Jhco’s usual position when that is asked is “nobody would want a rocket launcher”. His argument is allow them, but nobody will purchase one.

Flawed, I know.

Tanks are also ‘arms’. Who wants to bet an al-Qaeda member wouldn’t want a piece of that?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Maybe it’s time for some overveiws on this issue:
Background for the division
A good history of the 2nd Amendment
A shorter version of an explanation of the debate of guns

The actual 2nd Amend:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

NOW, what part of the “lefties’” position on REGULATION of “guns” is NOT understood in that?

As much as we but heads Karma, those were interesting links and I enjoyed reading them. Thanks for posting them.

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Tanks are also ‘arms’. Who wants to bet an al-Qaeda member wouldn’t want a piece of that?

Well, it is actually legal in the US for a civilian to own a tank. Very expensive and a fair few hoops to jump through, but legal.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Tanks are also ‘arms’. Who wants to bet an al-Qaeda member wouldn’t want a piece of that?

Well, it is actually legal in the US for a civilian to own a tank. Very expensive and a fair few hoops to jump through, but legal.

Well… Fuck.

I want a tank!

Second amendment was created to allow a second revolution to commence in the event that the government became oppressive. In the social environment we have today, something like that simply couldn’t happen, realistically. We really should have it removed.

Never challenge worse, never challenge worse.

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Second amendment was created to allow a second revolution to commence in the event that the government became oppressive. In the social environment we have today, something like that simply couldn’t happen, realistically. We really should have it removed.

In this political environment, the 2nd amendment is especially needed. There are a lot of vets out there and Obama has all but turned his back on them. In fact, he considers them terrorist threats because of their training and the problems they are bringing back with them. Problems he caused by tour after tour after tour in the war zones. Eventually, he may have to worry about them.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Second amendment was created to allow a second revolution to commence in the event that the government became oppressive. In the social environment we have today, something like that simply couldn’t happen, realistically. We really should have it removed.

In this political environment, the 2nd amendment is especially needed. There are a lot of vets out there and Obama has all but turned his back on them. In fact, he considers them terrorist threats because of their training and the problems they are bringing back with them. Problems he caused by tour after tour after tour in the war zones. Eventually, he may have to worry about them.

So you are saying that a Civil War against your fellow man would be acceptable because you’re unhappy with your democratically elected president?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Tanks are also ‘arms’. Who wants to bet an al-Qaeda member wouldn’t want a piece of that?

Well, it is actually legal in the US for a civilian to own a tank. Very expensive and a fair few hoops to jump through, but legal.

This is the greatest thing I have ever heard.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Second amendment was created to allow a second revolution to commence in the event that the government became oppressive. In the social environment we have today, something like that simply couldn’t happen, realistically. We really should have it removed.

In this political environment, the 2nd amendment is especially needed. There are a lot of vets out there and Obama has all but turned his back on them. In fact, he considers them terrorist threats because of their training and the problems they are bringing back with them. Problems he caused by tour after tour after tour in the war zones. Eventually, he may have to worry about them.

So you are saying that a Civil War against your fellow man would be acceptable because you’re unhappy with your democratically elected president?

What I am saying is…our government has gotten out of control. Washington is not supposed to be telling the states what to do through mandates. Washington is grabbing as much of the economy as it can. Healthcare, industries, etc. Just recently they tried to grab water rights locally, against all laws in this state and federally. It is in court now. The only way our people can regain control may be violence. the only voice we really have at this moment is our vote and they are playing with that.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Second amendment was created to allow a second revolution to commence in the event that the government became oppressive. In the social environment we have today, something like that simply couldn’t happen, realistically. We really should have it removed.

In this political environment, the 2nd amendment is especially needed. There are a lot of vets out there and Obama has all but turned his back on them. In fact, he considers them terrorist threats because of their training and the problems they are bringing back with them. Problems he caused by tour after tour after tour in the war zones. Eventually, he may have to worry about them.

My God, but you’re crazy.

Here. You. Go.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Second amendment was created to allow a second revolution to commence in the event that the government became oppressive. In the social environment we have today, something like that simply couldn’t happen, realistically. We really should have it removed.

In this political environment, the 2nd amendment is especially needed. There are a lot of vets out there and Obama has all but turned his back on them. In fact, he considers them terrorist threats because of their training and the problems they are bringing back with them. Problems he caused by tour after tour after tour in the war zones. Eventually, he may have to worry about them.

My God, but you’re crazy.

Here. You. Go.

Perhaps “crazy” isn’t quite accurate,,,,
or, maybe it’s even being quite “generous” of an assessment.
What I do see is that those who espouse such ideology AND do have seriousl “fire power” just might be a great “liabililty” to the very Constitution they so boldly, lovingly, so definanltly hold to be so dear.

Frankly stated: wachos w/ guns can be either good or bad. Good isn’t really a “problem”…now is it? IT’S THE BAD THAT IS THE PITS. We really aren’t talking about “good ppl” having guns…are we? It’s when guns are in the hands of “the bad”—regardless of legal, moral, etc. status—that some seriously bad shit goes down.

Please, tell me where to obtain a full-body condom in case that shit jake-o says is communicable. I’m crazy. BUT, that is some utter bat-shit.

Originally posted by issendorf:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Tanks are also ‘arms’. Who wants to bet an al-Qaeda member wouldn’t want a piece of that?

Well, it is actually legal in the US for a civilian to own a tank. Very expensive and a fair few hoops to jump through, but legal.

This is the greatest thing I have ever heard.

Is it street-legal though? Or will it just have to sit in my yard looking cool?

Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

Originally posted by issendorf:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by Darkscanner:

Tanks are also ‘arms’. Who wants to bet an al-Qaeda member wouldn’t want a piece of that?

Well, it is actually legal in the US for a civilian to own a tank. Very expensive and a fair few hoops to jump through, but legal.

This is the greatest thing I have ever heard.

Is it street-legal though? Or will it just have to sit in my yard looking cool?

I don’t think they are street legal in time of peace. The treads tear up the pavement. :)

Originally posted by jhco50:

You always have your head buried in the sand, don’t you?

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-classifies-returning-us-veterans-as-potential-terrorist-threat/

“the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Now, just where did it say that ALL of them……?
When we need jake-o to do his hyperbole trick….he fails us. LOL

Something that could be seen as some form of “support” for the above quote comes from a documentary on the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club. Many of the returning WWII vets had a form of post-traumatic stress syndrome. They experienced some really bad shit that basically changed them deeply and thereby made reintegration into society very difficult. Many were thought to be “danger junkies” who liked the adrenaline high of combat. Many different causes brought these various ppl together….initially, a luv of biking. Well, drinkin’, smokin’, drugin’, & fuckin’ seemed to have some commonality, too.