Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[yesman065]

MaggieL I guess my point was completely missed. Then again you are so sure of what you think that there is no longer any discussion of other opinions. Just so I'm not accused of ignoring your points I'll respond.

1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
2) I planned on taking my son out to a local club for firearms safety training, but decided against it for a number of reasons.
3) I meant accidents, as in a child or other person unfamiliar with firearms getting their hands on one. Like one of my children or their friends, nieces, nephews, neighbors - whomever. Nothing more "sinister" no need to be paranoid.
BTW, I still respect your opinion, but expected more from you than simply disparaging remarks toward mine.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.

And uncessesary laws shouldn't be designed at all, they should be forgotten.

Joe Average may be Christian, shall we forbid all other religions? Or only shall we only require that someone show a "realistic purpose" to their religion, and prove that they're not going to go "a bit overboard"?

Originally Posted by yesman065

2) I planned on taking my son out to a local club for firearms safety training, but decided against it for a number of reasons.

Why?

Originally Posted by yesman065

3) I meant accidents, as in a child or other person unfamiliar with firearms getting their hands on one. Like one of my children or their friends, nieces, nephews, neighbors - whomever. Nothing more "sinister" no need to be paranoid.

I don't think I'm being paranoid, I just wanted to know why you put quotes around the word, surely a reasonable question. Why did you do that?

"I wanted to avoid accidents." carries a very different meaning from "I wanted to avoid 'accidents'"; your use of scare quotes carries the implication that what you feared wouldn't actually be accidental.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I don't think I'm being paranoid, I just wanted to know why you put quotes around the word, surely a reasonable question. Why did you do that? "I wanted to avoid accidents." carries a very different meaning from "I wanted to avoid 'accidents'"; your use of scare quotes carries the implication that what you feared wouldn't actually be accidental.

Because accidents do happen. Thats all nothing more. Please don't try and read into what I write just read what is written.

And I chose not to take my son hunting because his grades were not what we discussed for him to EARN the right to do things like that.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Because accidents do happen. Thats all nothing more. Please don't try and read into what I write just read what is written.

I *read* what was written, and it was unclear; that's not my fault. "Because accidents do happen" does not explain your use of quote marks, which is what I was asking about. Were the quote marks an error?

Originally Posted by yesman065

...
1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
...
BTW, I still respect your opinion, but expected more from you than simply disparaging remarks toward mine.

Of course I am, you have no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Of course I am, you have no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.

After rereading what I wrote, I apologize. I was incorrect. It was not what I intended, but nonetheless it was wrong.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

[JayMcGee]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

Indeed so......


(now, justwhich part of the Constition were you pickin'n'choosin' from?)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The 2nd amendment refers to the citizens right and no other part supersedes it. There is no "pickin' and choosin'".

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

What is confusing you about this statement?

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

This is what you're doing.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

Actually, during that time, it was not unusual at all for private citizens on the coast to own cannons to protect their private coastlines & that law clearly included them as well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Actually, during that time, it was not unusual at all for private citizens on the coast to own cannons to protect their private coastlines & that law clearly included them as well.

Prior to 1776, cannons, privately owned by individuals, not communities or settlements, were rare as hen's teeth. They were too expensive to acquire and shoot (used a lot of powder), for most individuals to afford. Yes, they were legal, everything was legal until technology upped the ante.

As rifles and side arms improved, the people that could afford them, kept pace. It wasn't until weapons were developed for killing buildings and tanks, that private citizens didn't have a legitimate application for, that the government said whoa, Nellie. The people don't need this shit and could do a hell of a lot of bad things, even accidentally, with it. They figured it probably wasn't a good idea for you to be able to run down to the hardware store and pick up a gun that would shoot the door off a bank vault.

I'm hard pressed to come up with an occasion where I'd need anything bigger than a .5 bore. Defend myself from the government's military? When they can drop a nuke on me from half way around the world? No way.

Come to think of it, I wonder how many people with small arsenals like mine, are deluded into thinking that's all that's necessary to keep them safe from the government. That's nonsense, the ONLY thing that will protect us from the government, is an active, vigilant, voting public.
Guns only work against thugs, criminals and bullies, individually or very small groups.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Guns only work against thugs, criminals and bullies, individually or very small groups.

When used collectively, they can repel or disrupt an invading army; domestic or foreign as we have been finding out.