It was called the "cold war" and it worked.
Did you ever wondered why the USSR never used a nuke on us?
Bob Costas commentary
- Thread starter snowrdr
- Start date
It was called the "cold war" and it worked.
Did you ever wondered why the USSR never used a nuke on us?
I agree about private lives but this is not a private matter.
Guns are being used to commit crimes in public. I am certainly don't think we need to ban guns. It IS a constitutional right. I am simply saying you are wrong in saying this is the government overstepping their bounds in your private life. This is far from that and the wrong way to argue this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
M
mtsummitx
Well-known member
Really, wow!! I sure hope you are not a politician. Look, I am a tax paying, law abiding citizen. Because of those 2 simple facts right there it is none of uncle sam's business how many guns I may or may not have. I completely agree with the gun laws that we have which bar felons from owning guns (even though most of them still do). Forced registration of firearms by law abiding citizens is nothing more than a step closer to regulation, brought on under the false pretense that the US government is just trying to look out for and protect it's citizens. Well I say, no thank you uncle sam I will protect myself.
Amendment #2 Right to Bear Arms
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.
No where in there does it say, the right to keep and bear arms as long as the US Government knows what you have, and reserves the right to revoke this right should ever it so choose.
I never said that I support registration. But to say the government is overstepping into your home on this issue is stupid. You don't use guns in your home. Your argument is completely flawed.
I support the 2nd amendment 100%
Your argument sucks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I support the 2nd amendment 100%
Your argument sucks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
M
mtsummitx
Well-known member
My argument sucks, I'm saying stupid things, you are a mod and you talk to members like this. Can't have a civil discussion? No, you didn't outright say you are for registration, but you told me I was wrong in saying govt is overstepping their bounds into my private life. And that comment you made was based on my prior explanation about how I feel about registration. Don't use my guns in my home huh, I'll tell ya what, you break into my house in the middle of the night and you'll find out otherwise.
I have no problem having civil debates about differing opinions, but there is no need for you to tell me my argument sucks and basically call me stupid.
S
skidoorulz
Well-known member
The only regulation the government should have on guns is to keep them out of hands of criminals which they have not done and can not do, no matter how many laws they have. And it is none of the governments business whether I own guns or don't own guns. And to blame guns for any crime that is committed with a gun is just plumb azz stupid. A gun can not commit a crime. But a human using a gun can. Without the gun that human will more than likely still commit the crime, so what good did it do to unarm us?
I never said you were stupid either. I said your argument is poor (is that better? ). It is not an invasion of privacy. The government has every right to regulate guns. They just can't make them illegal. Gun are bought and sold. They are commerce. To say they are over stepping is just silly. It's a horrible argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think your arguement is silly or horrible.
That's an opinion, just because one is different than yours doesn't make it silly, stupid or horrible.
It makes it a difference of opinion.
Or in this case the intent of our forefathers regarding the constitution.
S
skidoorulz
Well-known member
You say the government has the right to regulate guns. I haven't read the original Bill of Rights in many years but I do not remember it saying that the government has the Right to regulate guns. I do remember it saying that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Please show me the Right you are talking about.
What are you going to do in your world, when the government regulates guns to the point that all you can have is a single shot 17 cal. pistol? In your world you still have the right to have a gun, but what good is it?
Last edited:
When I say regulate I say the laws that are wrote be legislature to control it to some point:
-not allowing felons to have a gun
-require that you be an adult
-background check
-etc etc
The bill of rights is just that "rights". Individual rights to be specific. The individual part is important. Many people argue that guns are for a "well regulated militia". That is bullcrap. The bill of rights is not the rights of the country or government but the rights of individuals.
I'm saying that you making an argument that the government is overstepping by trying to regulate guns because it is a private act that takes place in the privacy of your home is an incorrect argument. Private acts in your home are religion, sexuality, sexual acts, the way you raise your family, what you put in your body (food drugs Etc. ). Shooting a gun is not limited to your home.
Make sense? I'm on your side about gun control. But your justification of your argument doesn't hold water. It is a constitutional right. That is all you need. Just like it is a right to have freedom of speech. It is not freedom of speech in your house. It is everywhere. You don't want the right to bear arms in just your house right? Don't make that argument. The right to bear arms extends beyond your home.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-not allowing felons to have a gun
-require that you be an adult
-background check
-etc etc
The bill of rights is just that "rights". Individual rights to be specific. The individual part is important. Many people argue that guns are for a "well regulated militia". That is bullcrap. The bill of rights is not the rights of the country or government but the rights of individuals.
I'm saying that you making an argument that the government is overstepping by trying to regulate guns because it is a private act that takes place in the privacy of your home is an incorrect argument. Private acts in your home are religion, sexuality, sexual acts, the way you raise your family, what you put in your body (food drugs Etc. ). Shooting a gun is not limited to your home.
Make sense? I'm on your side about gun control. But your justification of your argument doesn't hold water. It is a constitutional right. That is all you need. Just like it is a right to have freedom of speech. It is not freedom of speech in your house. It is everywhere. You don't want the right to bear arms in just your house right? Don't make that argument. The right to bear arms extends beyond your home.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
S
skidoorulz
Well-known member
Maybe the government should regulate our ability to give bad rep. What is really funny is you never see anyone complain about good rep but give someone bad rep and they cry like babies.
And no I didn't give it
And no I didn't give it
I don't think they should regulate it, but you would be silly to think that if they banned bad repping that bad repping would not be reduced or would stay the same..
D
DOO DAWG
Well-known member
Nor was it I......
The 2012 Index ranks only five nations high enough to be considered “Free”—Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland. That’s less than 3% of the 176 nations in the survey. Further, the U.S. no longer makes the cherished list of free nations. America ranked only 10th overall and is among 22 nations considered only “Mostly Free.” Note Free countries (green) and Mostly Free countries (pale green) on the Heritage map below:
From...
http://content.crown.org/acton/rif/2064/s-02ec-1212/-/l-00de:9/l-00de/showPreparedMessage
Switzerland Eh? Check it out BOB!!
The 2012 Index ranks only five nations high enough to be considered “Free”—Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland. That’s less than 3% of the 176 nations in the survey. Further, the U.S. no longer makes the cherished list of free nations. America ranked only 10th overall and is among 22 nations considered only “Mostly Free.” Note Free countries (green) and Mostly Free countries (pale green) on the Heritage map below:
From...
http://content.crown.org/acton/rif/2064/s-02ec-1212/-/l-00de:9/l-00de/showPreparedMessage
Switzerland Eh? Check it out BOB!!
Ahhh...let's try this approach.
Alcohol should be regulated or abolished all together.
The senseless deaths relating to alcohol can be stopped if the govt. would just abolish all the juice...that way....even though your law abiding...there is no risk to a soccer mom driving a minivan load of kids getting t-boned on a saturday afternoon by a drunk driver.
There is no constitutional right to keep and drink the sauce...and it kills far more peeps than firearms.
Alcohol should be regulated or abolished all together.
The senseless deaths relating to alcohol can be stopped if the govt. would just abolish all the juice...that way....even though your law abiding...there is no risk to a soccer mom driving a minivan load of kids getting t-boned on a saturday afternoon by a drunk driver.
There is no constitutional right to keep and drink the sauce...and it kills far more peeps than firearms.
I think the same argument should apply to heroin.
pretty sure they tried that once, didn't work out so well.
Ruffy, some weekend when you are out of town sledding, imagine some criminal knocking on the door of your home and having a party with your wife and kids..do you honestly mean to stand here and say that you and your wife would rather voluntarily give up your rights to protect yourself and your loved ones in the off chance that years down the road you will be safer?..I am sorry, but you wont be..same reason why you can go reveiw every shooting(where more then 5-6 peeps were killed) over the last 10-15-20 yrs and find out they all happened in gun free zones.....why ? because an unarmed people are an easy mark....funny, if these deranged people really wanted to just kill until they get killed you would think they would walk in guns ablazing in a police station..they dont why? because they are gutless chicken chits..they are scared to face someone that can fight back....shame on you ruffy............
Similar threads
