Gun control--Just imagine the possibilities! - Page 4 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 12-22-2012, 01:02 AM   #91
Jeeper
 
Lbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 611
It is unfortunate that some people cannot have a rational, factual discussion about a serious national problem- violence. By sheer number of homicides we are the most violent western nation by orders of magnitude. Reasonable gun regulation alone will not solve our problems, but it is part of a solution that includes better mental health availability and a look at our culture of violence and entitlement. If we can get to people before they act out we could save a lot of lives.

The Secret Service studied mass shootings and in nearly every case the perp telegraphed his intentions. People need to speak up, but they didn't because they didn't want to get someone else in trouble or didn't believe the perp was serious.

The point here is that this is a complex problem with many facets, only a part of which is access to weapons. Hopefully, the unspeakable tragedy at Newtown will allow us to start down the road toward solutions that are realistic, effective and respecting of all people's rights, including gun owners. But simply doing nothing is not an option anymore.

__________________
2013 Gecko JK Rubicon, LoD bumper, Warn VR8000-S, Ace Rock Sliders, Goodyear SilentArmors, Drake grill inserts, Prolink, Smart Doors, AntennaX, Welcome grabs, Mopar Slush mats front, QT mats rear and cargo, Midland CB, Mopar locking gas cap, RR fuel door, wallet on life support.

If you don't know where you're going, you'll get there.
Lbear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:19 AM   #92
Jeeper
 
Raiderfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Knob Noster, MO
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lbear View Post
By sheer number of homicides we are the most violent western nation by orders of magnitude.
Thats because none of those countries have a population as big as the US. Only India and China trump us in population.

US = 314 million
UK = 63 million
Germany = 81 million
France 65 million

Going off sheer numbers alone of course is going to give the US higher numbers. When you compare murders per capita the US isn't all that high as some biased media would have you believe...

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raiderfan001 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:28 AM   #93
Jeeper
 
Full Spool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Calhan, Colorado
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed98208 View Post
Will conspiracy theorists be labeled as mental defectives too? Bet they'd be top of the list for extermination because they've got it all figured out. The government would just get them all together in one place and hit 'em with chemtrails.
Is it a conspiracy to believe there are conspiracy theorists.
Full Spool is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:34 AM   #94
Jeeper
 
Full Spool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Calhan, Colorado
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
Thats because none of those countries have a population as big as the US. Only India and China trump us in population.
I'll bet, if the Chinese citizens had personal weapons, their government wouldn't be imprisoning citizens for having Mayan Apocalypse parties.
Full Spool is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 05:31 AM   #95
Genius!

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
Coyote_94YJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 20,888
Send a message via ICQ to Coyote_94YJ Send a message via Yahoo to Coyote_94YJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
School of less than 105, K-12. My graduating class was 450. The freshman class at that time was 2k. The High School attd my senior year was just under 6k. Not quite the same scenario...
I'm not sure I see where you are coming from with this. Are you saying that because the school you went to was much larger means that this type of program won't work for all schools or just your old school? In my mind common sense would dictate that the number of trained staff members carrying would be dependent upon the size of the school.
Coyote_94YJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 08:55 AM   #96
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote_94YJ
I'm not sure I see where you are coming from with this. Are you saying that because the school you went to was much larger means that this type of program won't work for all schools or just your old school? In my mind common sense would dictate that the number of trained staff members carrying would be dependent upon the size of the school.
My point is what works for a microscopic rural TX district is not one size fits all. City of Altanta has metal detectors and very, very large resource officers, and quite a few of em. Should rural AZ have to hire several large cops to hang out in the school because it works in GA? Or should the local citizens determine what works best for them, in the truest spirit of America?

Do we expect these teachers to be accountable for not defending children? Will we give them the same protection as police get? Will they be protected from torts? And if so, by what measure? Do we give all govt employees this protection then? Most schools are tobacco free zones, too. Nobody cares about that freedom the teachers were stripped of.

More guns don't equate to more security. Besides the fact, does one person here ACTUALLY believe a CT elementary school administrator or faculty member would have been wearing a colt peacemaker on their hip??? Perhaps you should converse with folks in a similar position to see their opinion. It would not be the ideal solution us gun advocates want to believe it would.

And what will those in favor say when a student overpowers a teacher, steals their gun, kills them, kills other students, then kills themself? It will happen, make no mistake about that. Unless of course, it is a district where all 50 employees know all 105 students very well, along with their families.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 09:10 AM   #97
Jeeper
 
reade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 421
UNODC murder rates most recent year
Subregion Rate Count Region
Eastern Africa 21.9 69,344 Africa
Middle Africa 20.8 25,330 Africa
Northern Africa 5.9 12,276 Africa
Southern Africa 30.5 17,484 Africa
Western Africa 15.4 44,671 Africa
Caribbean 16.9 7,001 Americas
Central America 28.5 45,050 Americas
Northern America 3.9 13,558 Americas
South America 20.0 79,039 Americas
Central Asia 6.1 3,667 Asia
Eastern Asia 1.3 19,828 Asia
South-Eastern Asia 6.0 34,787 Asia
Southern Asia 3.8 63,102 Asia
Western Asia 2.6 5,736 Asia
Eastern Europe 6.4 19,072 Europe
Northern Europe 1.5 1,432 Europe
Southern Europe 1.4 1,669 Europe
Western Europe 1.0 1,852 Europe
Australasia 1.0 268 Oceania
Melanesia 11.1 898 Oceania
Micronesia 2.5 10 Oceania
Polynesia 0.1 3 Oceania
[edit]
reade is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 09:12 AM   #98
Jeeper
 
tobkis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 129
My understanding is that the 2A is something I was born with. No Government, King or laws have the right to take it away. Am I reading it wrong?

I understand that it also states that "it will not be infringed upon".

My understanding is that 2A was not for hunting or sporting but protection against Government tyranny.

This is a part of freedom. Freedom I hold dearly. This is black and white and not open for opinions or regulation.
__________________
Always have an exit
tobkis is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 09:18 AM   #99
Supporting Member

WF Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Under my Jeep in beautiful upstate N.Y.
Posts: 2,992
Would it be that difficult to put a couple either police officers or a couple highly trained armed security guards in these freakin schools.I dont get it??? Is it that difficult??!!? Oh no thats right.Were too busy spending millions/trillions on other countries & keeping there people safe!! Are the children not worth the money to do this???? Stop spending money overseas dammit all!!!!
1jeeplvr is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 09:28 AM   #100
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobkis
My understanding is that the 2A is something I was born with. No Government, King or laws have the right to take it away. Am I reading it wrong?

I understand that it also states that "it will not be infringed upon".

My understanding is that 2A was not for hunting or sporting but protection against Government tyranny.

This is a part of freedom. Freedom I hold dearly. This is black and white and not open for opinions or regulation.
You are 100% correct. The Bill of Rights, and entire Constitution in general, does not grant any citizen any right. They are already yours by creation.

What it does do is regulate what actions the federal govt can and cannot take, but ever since Lincoln pissed on that ideal the govt has been gungho at allowing you rights based on concepts in violation of our Constitution. We are too sheepy to do anything about that. Fast forward and you get a president that puts hits on legally innocent citizens, which is murder in the first degree.

They absolutely meant military arms, not hunting rifles.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 09:30 AM   #101
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1jeeplvr
Would it be that difficult to put a couple either police officers or a couple highly trained armed security guards in these freakin schools.I dont get it??? Is it that difficult??!!? Oh no thats right.Were too busy spending millions/trillions on other countries & keeping there people safe!! Are the children not worth the money to do this???? Stop spending money overseas dammit all!!!!
We cant pay 25$ for a 6pack of coke that way. Senators will not go for that, for they have to get paid somehow. Govt contracts to supply overseas bases are a great way to do that. Don't forget nearly every retired general does work or has worked at getting contracts of war to private companies, imo that is treason and they should be hung for it.

Look at that crook Lindsey Graham, we stopped our wars so he quit to go get more money. If he thought we were going to syria or iraq he'd still be on the dole, bet your hat on that folks.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 12:50 PM   #102
Jeeper
 
Drix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Auburn
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ

My point is what works for a microscopic rural TX district is not one size fits all. City of Altanta has metal detectors and very, very large resource officers, and quite a few of em. Should rural AZ have to hire several large cops to hang out in the school because it works in GA? Or should the local citizens determine what works best for them, in the truest spirit of America?

Do we expect these teachers to be accountable for not defending children? Will we give them the same protection as police get? Will they be protected from torts? And if so, by what measure? Do we give all govt employees this protection then? Most schools are tobacco free zones, too. Nobody cares about that freedom the teachers were stripped of.

More guns don't equate to more security. Besides the fact, does one person here ACTUALLY believe a CT elementary school administrator or faculty member would have been wearing a colt peacemaker on their hip??? Perhaps you should converse with folks in a similar position to see their opinion. It would not be the ideal solution us gun advocates want to believe it would.

And what will those in favor say when a student overpowers a teacher, steals their gun, kills them, kills other students, then kills themself? It will happen, make no mistake about that. Unless of course, it is a district where all 50 employees know all 105 students very well, along with their families.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

Here is the answer to your question.

"There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children."


So yah the shooter in CT commuted suicide when police showed up. One guy with a peace maker on his hip and the shooter would of done the same thing.

And your what if scenarios don't hold any credibility. What if the world ended yesterday? It don't matter because it didn't happen. What if it ends tomorrow? Well it's not gonna happen.

Students are not gang rushing teachers now they will not be doing it if they don't know a teacher is carrying concealed.
__________________
95' YJ 6" lift 35"x12.5r15's D30/8.8 locked with 4:88's
"Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines."
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918
Drix is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:16 PM   #103
Jeeper
 
hwy1rubi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by werubiblue06 View Post
Interesting argument you bring up...

A Constitutional right equates (in you opinion) to male prowess or manhood.

That doesn't seems like a well though out or respectful argument but it is your opinion.
Some people choose to climb mountains, scale cliffs, kayak waterfalls, surf big waves or skydive to prove their masculinity primarily to themselves, and others need assault rifles with 40 round magazines to do it. The previous does no harm to anyone but ones self while the other has proved time and time again to be a danger to society.

Interesting how the gun side always brings up the constitution. Do you really think that John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams or more specifically James Madison who wrote the actual amendment wanted to arm citizens with military weaponry?

I respect an individuals right to own guns for perceived protection and for hunting but do not believe assault rifles and high capacity magazines meet those needs. Studies have shown that having guns in the home do not make it a safer place, and while hunting myself in my younger days and knowing people who enjoy it today, non use assault rifles. For the later I think it would be more sporting to hunt with bows or if the animals could shoot back would also make it more of a challenge.
hwy1rubi is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:24 PM   #104
Jeeper
 
Raiderfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Knob Noster, MO
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi View Post

Interesting how the gun side always brings up the constitution. Do you really think that John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams or more specifically James Madison who wrote the actual amendment wanted to arm citizens with military weaponry?
lol. I'm glad you mentioned more specifically James Madison. Because his version of the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that in todays day and age the language wouldn't even be disputed at all as to what exactly the 2nd was meant to do.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This was how James Madison wrote his version. It is pretty obvious what he thought the 2nd Amendment should mean. That the people should, if necessary for the security of a free country, be able to have a WELL ARMED militia.
Raiderfan001 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:25 PM   #105
Jeeper
 
Drix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Auburn
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi


Interesting how the gun side always brings up the constitution. Do you really think that John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams or more specifically James Madison who wrote the actual amendment wanted to arm citizens with military weaponry?

I respect an individuals right to own guns for perceived protection and for hunting but do not believe assault rifles and high capacity magazines meet those needs. Studies have shown that having guns in the home do not make it a safer place, and while hunting myself in my younger days and knowing people who enjoy it today, non use assault rifles. For the later I think it would be more sporting to hunt with bows or if the animals could shoot back would also make it more of a challenge.
It's an interesting read. the link I posted above.

Yes when they wrote the constitution they did intend for people to own military weapons. The second amendment is for protection especially protection from the government.

On a side note the cannons in the revolutionary war were privately owned.

People seem to forget the perspective the document is written. It is not written as a way of giving rights. It is written as recognizing that all people have these rights upon being born. They are unalienable endowed from our creator.

It is not something the government can legislate away.
__________________
95' YJ 6" lift 35"x12.5r15's D30/8.8 locked with 4:88's
"Why in hell can't the Army do it if the Marines can. They are the same kind of men; why can't they be like Marines."
Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, USA; 12 February 1918
Drix is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:36 PM   #106
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern Michigan near the tip of the mit
Posts: 293
From Blackfive.net,
I thought it was well said... I thought it went along with the current topic, sorry if it's off topic a little
Chris

Posted By Deebow • [December 20, 2012]
“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.”
―Edmund Burke
Answering the call of being a sheepdog in this society isn't easy. It isn't an easy choice, given the amount of ridicule it usually comes with by those that are or live among the sheep. We are looked at by the sheep as if we are the crazy ones because we have chosen to be the people who do the hard and necessary work of keeping evil from taking over. Honestly, most of the time, I have neither the time nor inclination to explain myself to likes of people who sleep comfortably under the blanket of safety that sheepdogs like me provide by just going about their daily work. Not listening to the likes of ass-clowns like Martin Bashir, Chrissy Tingles, Special Ed and Soledad O'Brien makes for a better day.
This calling to be a sheepdog comes with a number of burdens. The equipment that you sometimes have to carry and use is heavy, hot and cumbersome. You have to spend hours and days away from your family over a lifetime missing Thanksgivings, Halloweens, Christmas programs and birthdays year after year training or working. You get to see the sun rise when you are going home and see it set when you are heading to work.
The sheep and the lambs know not the sacrifices of the sheepdog, made to keep them safe. They happily go about their lives blissfully unaware of the nature of the world and all of the evil that never reaches them. They don't know about the bad actors, the dark places and the daily stress of being out there ensuring that they never know evil.
But these burdens are not the most heavy of burdens.
There will come a time in your life and career when you might have to decide who lives and dies out there. It's a terrible responsibility, you can't delegate it to anyone else, and it's one you will have to make on your own. The bigger reality is, it is also a decision that you are going to have to live with as a human being, for the rest of your life. There will come a time when you will have to say "no" to that person who needs you because the most important person to keep alive at that time, is going to be yourself. You could be facing a situation where there will be people, some of them your friends, all saying "save me, save me." They're looking for a miracle and you are going to have to decide if being that miracle is within you, and even worse, the person that may need that miracle might be you.
Some of you will recognize a version of that speech, and I heard it myself a long time ago from a wise old man who had to make a few of those terrible decisions in his life.
Sheepdogs can't be everywhere at once. Sometimes the sheep are on their own, and evil people know this. They chose to attack at that moment because they know that there will be no one there to stop them. If someone has an insatiable darkness in their heart, there is no law given by man or God that will stop them in their quest to act upon their terrible desires. Out of sheep, sometimes a sheepdog arises. God Bless Victoria Soto for knowing that one of the miracles that day was her. God Bless Maryrose Kristopik for doing what she could that day and being that miracle for her music class. God Bless Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach for running toward the sound of gunfire and being a miracle to their school. They moved to stop an armed man engaged in the rapid mass murder of little children armed only with their fists.
A Sheepdog's Burden, carried with them everyday, is at the moment that evil appears, that they will not be there in time to stop it. That evil will be able wreak havoc and by the time the Sheepdog arrives, the damage will be done and the evil men who have done evil deeds will be long gone. It is, without a doubt, the emptiest feeling in the world. Sheepdogs bear this burden because we know evil, we know that it sometimes pays a visit to the most cherished of places.
The tools needed to stop evil when used by evil men are not the problem. We don't need to know why evil is or why evil does or what evil will do. The problem is evil itself, and the people that embody it and act on it. It cannot be negotiated away, it cannot be wished away and it does not just go away.
The only way to stop evil, and evil people, is to meet that evil, shake it, stomp it or kill it if it is mortal.
__________________
2008 soft top, stick, in red
The problem with the world...too many nuts, and not enough squirrels!
Chrispy is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:39 PM   #107
Jeeper
 
hwy1rubi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
lol. I'm glad you mentioned more specifically James Madison. Because his version of the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that in todays day and age the language wouldn't even be disputed at all as to what exactly the 2nd was meant to do.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This was how James Madison wrote his version. It is pretty obvious what he thought the 2nd Amendment should mean. That the people should, if necessary for the security of a free country, be able to have a WELL ARMED militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drix View Post
It's an interesting read. the link I posted above.

Yes when they wrote the constitution they did intend for people to own military weapons. The second amendment is for protection especially protection from the government.

On a side note the cannons in the revolutionary war were privately owned.

People seem to forget the perspective the document is written. It is not written as a way of giving rights. It is written as recognizing that all people have these rights upon being born. They are unalienable endowed from our creator.

It is not something the government can legislate away.

So you two believe private citizens should be able to possess the same level of weaponry as the military?
hwy1rubi is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:51 PM   #108
Jeeper
 
werubiblue06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001
lol. I'm glad you mentioned more specifically James Madison. Because his version of the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that in todays day and age the language wouldn't even be disputed at all as to what exactly the 2nd was meant to do.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This was how James Madison wrote his version. It is pretty obvious what he thought the 2nd Amendment should mean. That the people should, if necessary for the security of a free country, be able to have a WELL ARMED militia.
I am not a history buff but I do remember watching a documentary on WW2. In it they explained that do to how so many Americans do have the right to own weapons, they chose to not invade the US with troops on foot and stuck to what they did. I'm sure the odds of something like that happening in today's age is little to non-exciting. However, who thought that 911 was possible. Do the groups that want to kill us play by the rules and not wouldn't use assault type weapons should they get the chance to organize?

The Constitution does seem to be an inconvenient document for those that would prefer to live in a gun free state. Too many try to rewrite either history or the meaning of written documents/laws or influence the younger generation through selective teachings in school or through Hollywood and the media.
__________________
"We can't all be Washingtons, but we can all be patriots."
~Charles F. Browne
werubiblue06 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:52 PM   #109
Jeeper
 
ed98208's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 390
Weren't modern military guns in 1791 basically flint lock rifles? Where do you second amendment shouters believe the line should be drawn when interpreting a single sentence in a 200+ year old document to mean that civilians should have access to all the same weapons as the military? I really want to know, truly. Nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? How about hand-held missile launchers? Grenades? Fully automatic guns? Unless you actually want civilians to literally have every type of weapon that the military has, then you must have a limiting line that you're personally comfortable with. Where is it? And why should your line take precedence over mine?
ed98208 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 01:56 PM   #110
Jeeper
 
Raiderfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Knob Noster, MO
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi View Post
So you two believe private citizens should be able to possess the same level of weaponry as the military?
I believe that a ban on "high capacity clips" and a ban on "scary looking semi auto rifles" is against the Constitution. To an extent yes we should have access to "military weapons". Don't even try and say "oh then I guess you should have tanks and grenades and nukes too huh?" That's retarded. Do I think we should have access to a semi automatic rifle? Absolutely.

You do realize the average AR15 is just a semi auto rifle right?
Raiderfan001 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:02 PM   #111
Jeeper
 
ed98208's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
Do I think we should have access to a semi automatic rifle? Absolutely.
Why not fully automatic rifles? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can't have those?
ed98208 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:06 PM   #112
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Drix, interesting rant quoted.

Now I see your point. Let teachers choose if they want to carry so that only a few of our children get killed at school. Sound logic. Arm people that the same folks who want to arm them alledge are underworked, overpaid, union blessed and lazy. Do you also believe you should be able to carry, say, in a police station? Are you deprived then?

I find it humorous, the thought of elementary teachers packing in the lunch room. Y'all must not know any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi
Interesting how the gun side always brings up the constitution. Do you really think that John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams or more specifically James Madison who wrote the actual amendment wanted to arm citizens with military weaponry?
Do you know why the 2nd was written? Allow me to quote myself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ
... when they wrote the 2nd they also meant Militia weaponry, that is to say what would have come from the armory, not the gunsmith. Gunsmiths at that time made custom fit high quality rifles to hunt for generations. Many were unique calibers which were formed by hand in custom presses included with the rifle and had very nice custom stocks and trap doors. Armorers, on the other hand, were charged with making similar, same caliber, simple rifles for defense against invasion. That way magazines (little castle buildings holding arms and shot, and why guns now have "magazines") could stock generic shot to be used, sent from "shot towers", that would work in all the defensive arms also stored there. These are what the Brits raided in PA and VA, storing the arms in Chesapeake Bay on warships so the "injuns didn't steal em". Left defenseless, our Fathers drafted a safegaurd against such a thing happening again, or so they thought. They never would have conceived banning hunting rifles, so they made no mention, which makes it the choice of We The People.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson
And might I add, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Jeffersons draft of the VA Constitution.

Madison was originally opposed to the Bill of Rights, thinking there was no need to enumerate them. It was relunctantly that he wrote 19, 10 of which were used. Even so, I submit:
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46- James Madison

Governour Morris intentionally used verbage to strengthen the federal powers, which the BOR is contradictory to. For instance, he choose "We The People", implying the persons of America make the nation, not the assembly of states as directed by the Constitution. This verbage was used by John Marshall and Lincoln to opress states of their due freedoms. I doubt he wanted individuals to have this type of Liberty, though he did agree to it.

And we could keep on goin...

If you do not like the constitution, fight to amend it or leave. Changing the meaning of what it already in print is insulting to those who established it.

And you can own select fire (fully auto) BECAUSE of the grandfather clause in the Constitution, otherwise Reagan would've taken em away (at the height of fear of invasion, he was some piece of work).
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:07 PM   #113
Jeeper
 
Raiderfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Knob Noster, MO
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed98208 View Post
Why not fully automatic rifles? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can't have those?
I don't see why not. But that's only because it's fun to shoot full auto. Nobody that was actually intent on mass killing people would use full auto. It's just a waste of ammo in that kind of situation. Unless you believe everything you see from Hollywood that is...
Raiderfan001 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:15 PM   #114
Jeeper
 
RedBones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Wv
Posts: 2,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed98208 View Post

Why not fully automatic rifles? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can't have those?
We can have those, if you got the money.
People can also buy silencers,you need to get a 200 tax stamp.
:-)
__________________
14 JK WW
11 JK
03 TJ
97 TJ
95 YJ
RedBones is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:19 PM   #115
Jeeper
 
werubiblue06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi

Some people choose to climb mountains, scale cliffs, kayak waterfalls, surf big waves or skydive to prove their masculinity primarily to themselves, and others need assault rifles with 40 round magazines to do it. The previous does no harm to anyone but ones self while the other has proved time and time again to be a danger to society.

Interesting how the gun side always brings up the constitution.
So you refuse to believe that people just enjoy those type of sport or activities because it gives them pleasure and enjoy the adrenalin rush from the activities. The sport/activity of wheeling is one I got into because it is exciting and challenging to me. NOT because I need or want to prove anything. Same thing with owning any type of weapon. It is enjoyable to take it target practice and get proficient with it. I will give you one point some may want to build up their Jeeps to SHOW they can more than the other. But I would guess (as with myself) most improve their Jeeps because they want to do more with it and be safer doing it.

As fare as the constitution-- we are a country of laws. That happens to be the foundation of this country. It shouldn't be reinterpret for the convenience of a cause.
__________________
"We can't all be Washingtons, but we can all be patriots."
~Charles F. Browne
werubiblue06 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:33 PM   #116
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern Michigan near the tip of the mit
Posts: 293
The Swiss do not have a standing Army, they have a militia....
The Swiss Army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm Sig P220semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.
The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female.
I’m pretty sure this would qualify as an Assault Weapon here in the States, and yet the Swiss send these weapons home with their soldiers.
Could you imagine the liberal out rage if we tried something like that here???
__________________
2008 soft top, stick, in red
The problem with the world...too many nuts, and not enough squirrels!
Chrispy is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:35 PM   #117
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed98208

Why not fully automatic rifles? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can't have those?
I would rather live in a dangerous freedom than a peaceful slavery.
Thos Jefferson

And I don't need to quote Dr Franklin beyond my sig to share his thoughts.

There are 30,000 machine guns in private hands in VA. That helps me sleep at night, the fact we would not fall quietly to the night.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:38 PM   #118
Jeeper
 
BlueRidgeYJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrispy
Could you imagine the liberal out rage if we tried something like that here???
CMP is supposed to do just that, but our politicians have perverted that, too, for people scared of the Liberty God created you with.
__________________
“Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear.”
BlueRidgeYJ is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:56 PM   #119
Jeeper
 
ed98208's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBones View Post
We can have those, if you got the money.
People can also buy silencers,you need to get a 200 tax stamp.
:-)
Okaaay...you're missing my point but I suspect that's on purpose. My POINT is that the Constitution does not specifically limit or define the term "arms". The men who wrote it could not have conceived of the ways we've created to kill each other today, just as 200 years from now there will be weapons that make the ones we have now look like rocks and spears. That's why a line has to be drawn (and undoubtedly continue to be redrawn as we invent new ways to kill) somewhere that says "weapons above this line are heavily restricted or for military use only". The debate is where to draw it.

So to the freedom-ringers on this board: Where do you draw the line, and why? What guns should be available to anyone who can pass a standard background check, and which should be highly restricted to only those with a higher level of licensing? Which weapons should be completely banned from private hands? And do you agree that ANY limitations at all could be interpreted as unconstitutional because the 2nd Amendment sets no limits?
ed98208 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-22-2012, 02:59 PM   #120
Jeeper
 
Raiderfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Knob Noster, MO
Posts: 7,381
I'm going to bed but just going to post this.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi

Raiderfan001 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Download our Mobile App

» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC