"Repeal the Second Amendment" -- article

[competentone]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Where I part ways is when the right to own firearms goes to those individuals psychologically unfit to own them....

And exactly who is going to make the determination about what is "psychologically unfit"?

I explained earlier, many psychologists will describe anyone who likes guns, or feels the "need" to own firearms to protect their family living in a suburban neighborhood, as a "psychologically unfit" person.

You're traveling down a slippery slope when you start giving the government power to describe who is "psychologically fit" to own a firearm and who it not!

[Moneyguy1]

Competent...

The Courts. Proposed legislation "will not be challenged" by the NRA.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
Take that BS back to the other thread.

See, only liberals and nonwhites have 1st amendment rights, us white male Conservatives are told to keep quite & leave

[Rick Lee]

Here's my next big bad assault rifle. Actually, this one is a full auto machine gun. Such fun!

[Moneyguy1]

Glad you live far far away from AZ.

Most of us out here are satisfied with something a bit more......sane.

[Rick Lee]

I wouldn't be surprised if AZ had far more such guns than we do in VA. Anyway, this was a demo model that the local rep. from Sigarms brought to an IDPA shoot. I think they are only sold to military and police agencies. AFAIK, private citizens in the US cannot buy any full auto gun made after 1986 and so you can guess that the ones we can buy are insanely expensive. A real M-16 is north of $15k. I've seen other class III guns for $40k when they cost $800 back in the day. A real Tommy gun was $125 back before the 1934 ban. You could buy a nice Porsche for what they cost now. Contrary to popular belief, machine guns in private hands are almost non-existant and those who have them are rich and well-regulated by the BATF.

[Moneyguy1]

Glad to hear. And, out here, not many that I know have much more than a rifle for hunting and a handgun for home protection. Out in public, you see very few people carrying in an open holster. I have seen one in the past yer, and he was a scary dude with facial tatoos like Queequeg in "Mobt Dick". He had a nice turquoise belt buckle though....

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
See, only liberals and nonwhites have 1st amendment rights, us white male Conservatives are told to keep quite & leave

So what's the point of the photobucket repost?

[Moneyguy1]

racer;;;

Your choice of faucets sucks!! $19.95 at Ace. Turn green inside the plastic handles!!

[Rick Lee]

I've never seen anyone open carry, though it's legal here too. You don't see class III guns in public and most indoor ranges don't allow full auto. You'd be very surprised by the folks who own them. They are one of the best investments you could make if you got in in time. First time I shot a class III MAC-10 at a local range, the range asked the owner to see the paperwork before we could shoot. First time you hear that thing go off, everyone drops what they're doing and comes over to have a look. It's NOTHING like the movies at all.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by stuartj
As John said. Whatever gets you through the night.

I remember well December 8, 1980 (I was in college at the time)...unfortunately, John never made it through the night. Think about that...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
That really doesn't answer the basic question. Is "the people" defined as individuals or as a State Militia?

That is the problem I have....getting a straight, unequivocal answer to just about any question re: the second amendment. It seems to be open to individual interpretation. That "nut job" may be acting, thinking that he or she is protecting their constutional rights from government intervention. Where is the line drawn?

It is a serious question; not just an attempt to be contrarian. Like I said, I do not have the answer and am beginning to doubt anyone has.

You posted this question in several forms in several different posts. I provided a clear answer, showing the context in which "the people" appears in the 4th, 9th, and 10th Ammendments. The Bill of Rights is very clear on who it addresses as "the people". It was the "straight, unequivocal answer" that you requested repeatedly.

Not only have you chosen to ignore that answer, but you are now off on other, unrelated tangents. This did seem to be important to you (judging from how hard you were pressing for an answer) and now you have dropped it entirely. I have seen this behavior repeated time and time again over the years, where anti-gun leaning folks will press the "militia" issue, ignoring or unaware of the clear context in which "the people" is presented in the rest of the Bill of Rights. When this entirely too obvious context is pointed out, these folks tend to veer off onto other, unrelated tangents, just as you have on this thread. It's all very predictable from them; I guess I expected more from you. Oh well.

[72doug2,2S]

What John said,

Happiness is a warm gun, Mama
Happiness is a warm, yes it is, Gun

[berettafan]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Glad you live far far away from AZ.

Most of us out here are satisfied with something a bit more......sane.

Seriously mg, a chrysler K car owner could be looking at your 944 and saying the same thing. 'bahh' he would say, 'that darn sports car is made for exceeding the speed limit and reckless, erratic driving!'

[berettafan]

Originally posted by KC911
I remember well December 8, 1980 (I was in college at the time)...unfortunately, John never made it through the night. Think about that...

Lennon was the worst thing that ever happened to the Beatles. He was dead long before the whack-job with a revolver convinced him of it.

[72doug2,2S]

John was an egomaniac, but Yoko killed the Beatles. John was actually getting off politics and making music again when that tragedy happened. Double Fantasy.

Don't ya know that happiness is warm, yes it is....

G...u.....n

Bang, Bang shoot shoot

[Moneyguy1]

beretta...

It is obvious that your really love your weapons. It is also obvious that you lack a bit in the area of logical debate.

Love your weapons...put them on display.....That's O.K. Your right. But, like any "religion" don't expect to convert everyone to your way of thinking.

End of discussion between one who respects firearms and understands their purpose and another who sees them as some kind of holy object worthy of adoration...

See how stupid this statement is? Kind of like the K car comment....Makes no sense and does not stand up under scrutiny.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
beretta...

It is obvious that your really love your weapons. It is also obvious that you lack a bit in the area of logical debate.

Love your weapons...put them on display.....That's O.K. Your right. But, like any "religion" don't expect to convert everyone to your way of thinking.

End of discussion between one who respects firearms and understands their purpose and another who sees them as some kind of holy object worthy of adoration...

See how stupid this statement is? Kind of like the K car comment....Makes no sense and does not stand up under scrutiny.

Here is one maybe you will understand, and this does stand up, So do you understand the purpose of a mans butt hole, many of the same anti-gun liberals that want to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights, want to give special rights to those who have used their butt holes to spread AIDS with its unintended use.

[nostatic]

well then...isn't that sweet. bad taste and homophobia all wrapped into one. time to lock the door...