SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

... The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

"Tyrannical government has always been the problem"

Nearmiss, are you talking about previous US governments here? If so which ones would you describe as being 'tyrannical'? Seriously, are you sure that word is justified? I categorise tyrants or tyrannical regimes as Pol Pot or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. It should really be used for murderous regimes - I don't see anything in present day USA that could justify that word.

"America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now."

Again. What are they doing that can justify that term?

[arthursmedley]

@ Hood, lol. Fantastic m8!! We who are about to be milked salute you!

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by tk471138

your "argument" is so flawed....the will of the majority, has NO bearing on my creator endowed rights....the founders did not like democracy for a reason....Franklin famously told a reporter that this was a republic....

the majority cant simply vote to nullify one of my basic creator endowed rights, and ANY atempt to do so is or will be null and void....and any attempt to enforce such a law aught to be resisted...that is if you have any dignity....

If the right to bear arms is God-given, or a basic human right, is there a limit in your opinion to what type of weaponry an individual citizen should be able to own?

(This next question might seem crazy, but parts of it have already been touched upon in this thread)
Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is? How do we interpret just where God intended that limit to be drawn? (very genuinely, I'm not trying to be facetious here. Just I don't know that is is spelt out anywhere).

If there is absolutely NO limit then are we prepared to allow people access to small nuclear devices? If we don't are we infringing their freedom?

Because, after all, nukes dont kill people, people do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer my own question - I'd say the reasonable place to draw the line would be fully automatic military style rifles

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Gun controls are bad for a principal reason.

The reason the framers of American constitution created 2nd amendment (gun freedom) for the right to own and bear arms in America wasn't for hunting and sport. The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

If Hillary Clinton crams gun controls through a United Nations treaty in opposition to the US Constitution she will become the Jane Fonda of this generation.
That isn't a place I think any intelligent person would want to be. Jane Fonda was a traitor and is probably one of the most hated people in America for giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, when America was at war in Viet Nam. All the Vietnam vets call her Hanoi Jane, and hate her, the spit on her, and curse her publicly even today. She did that 50 years ago, and the only thing that saved her from being prosecuted as a war criminal was the tremendous influence of her father, Henry Fonda. A man that all America loved.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

No offence but the Tyrranical goverment they had in mind is a throwback to when the British ruled, the USA is all about democracy now, I just find it slightly nonsensical to be so vehmently pro-democracy and pursue it's expansion like it's the most wonderfull thing but keep a gun behind your back in case it all goes wrong.

the Vietnam war was lost, it became communist and the free world didn't implode when it happened, maybe Jane had a point.

I don't believe all guns should be banned, there is good reason for some for hunting and pest control.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Gun controls are bad for a principal reason.

The reason the framers of American constitution created 2nd amendment (gun freedom) for the right to own and bear arms in America wasn't for hunting and sport. The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

If Hillary Clinton crams gun controls through a United Nations treaty in opposition to the US Constitution she will become the Jane Fonda of this generation.
That isn't a place I think any intelligent person would want to be. Jane Fonda was a traitor and is probably one of the most hated people in America for giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, when America was at war in Viet Nam. All the Vietnam vets call her Hanoi Jane, and hate her, the spit on her, and curse her publicly even today. She did that 50 years ago, and the only thing that saved her from being prosecuted as a war criminal was the tremendous influence of her father, Henry Fonda. A man that all America loved.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

Or to put it another way, she disagreed with her goverment's decision and did something about it. Just like you're proposing if necessary.

It amazes me that you can imagine the entire gun owning fraternity of the US rising up as a well organised counter-government force. You'd be reduced to small pockets of resistance blown out of existence either by the military or by the pro-government gun owning private militia.

@ Stern

Perhaps my cynical humour passed you by. Some cattle are ungulates. To make it easier I should have said that I voted but my political views are irrelevant save for on this one issue.

@ Arthur



Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

@ Stern

Perhaps my cynical humour passed you by. Some cattle are ungulates. To make it easier I should have said that I voted but my political views are irrelevant save for on this one issue.

@ Arthur



Hood

Yeah, funnily enough I thought it was plausible enough,considering your self-righteousness and the fact that you don't even know your own history..

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Yeah, funnily enough I thought it was plausible enough,considering your self-righteousness and the fact that you don't even know your own history..

Lol what a petulant post. Does it grate that someone won't bow down to your superior manliness? It must do if you've resorted to groundless insults.



Hood

[swiss]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

I did read the first half of your statement and I'll ask you again; give us the name of a dictator that disarmed "the people"? Guess what, when my country was a feudal society the men were required to practise with the Long Bow. I'm really not sure what the sad history of black and native Americans has got to do with this thread but it's your history.

Chavez? Hugo Chavez? He's up for re-election this year isn't he?

You are either pretty young or failed history.
Lets go back a millennium.

Your Lord had the the right to
- collect taxes
- use your working power whatever hed felt it was needed to(only if you were extremely lucky he would deduct it from your dues)
- you needed HIS approval to marry, he also had the right to F*** your wife in the first wedding night

Also, no one was allowed to bear arms.
Why?
Because hungry and po'd farmers pose a threat, simple as that.
Only if he called you as a soldier, usually unpaid and where you get your meals from was your prob, you were supposed to have arms -at your own expense of course.

Every tyrant regime in the past 1000 year banned arms!

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

Still, at least I learned the Swedes are slaves!

They are far from what they want to be.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Should people be able to own anti-tank missiles, or SAMs? Is there a limit? If so who decides where that limit is?

I don't know about these other guys because I can't speak for them but I'll raise my hand. I want them. I want'em all available. I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it.

If I lived in a 3rd world country trust me...I'd have an S-300 and some Russian tanks. Why? Because they're willing to sell them and I want to buy them.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Lol what a petulant post. Does it grate that someone won't bow down to your superior manliness? It must do if you've resorted to groundless insults.



Hood

not really, I kinda pity you actually, I think that you represent a certain kind of self-righteous individuals who convinced themselves that whatever their government does for/to them it's all acceptable, cos they're too lazy/ignorant/blind to see how they're being deprived of their freedom. Your government is basically telling you "I don't trust you and I'll do anything I can to control you" and you bow to them, and what you get in return is a country that is no safer than what it was in the 80s, more taxes and less rights.. but I'm sure you know better, so keep on living your deluded reality..