Owning a tank isn't a biggie anyway, you can do that in the UK. T-72 anyone?
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/T72/T72.htm
Possibly sir would prefer a combat bulldozer?
http://www.witham-sv.com/infopage.php?ID=484&Overide=1
Printable View
Owning a tank isn't a biggie anyway, you can do that in the UK. T-72 anyone?
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/T72/T72.htm
Possibly sir would prefer a combat bulldozer?
http://www.witham-sv.com/infopage.php?ID=484&Overide=1
I wouldn't mind people owning either of those assasin.
Good. I would certainly be very annoyed if the right to own military vehicles was taken away. I fancy the bulldozer myself, I reckon you could do all sorts of things with that whereas let's face it an MBT is a one trick pony.
Plus god knows where you get the parts for a T-72.
Assassin the only place I draw the line is nukes and diseases like small pox.
Yeah, it is a bit difficult to see how collecting diseases could be considered a valid hobby. Unless they were STDs maybe.
I guess a somewhat miffed guy who runs amok in a tank after his girlfriend left him won't be a pretty sight.
Whilst gun ownership has been rising. Hmmm.Quote:
Allow me to repeat: Violent crime has been falling for over a decade. It's at something like a 40-year low right now. So make whatever arguments you please about gun ownership, but don't go sounding off about how the streets are running with blood and those guys from the Road Warrior are taking over. It ain't so.
I believe the Nazis calculated somewhere in the realm of 200,000 casulties. That's quite a lot. Jews in Polish ghettos were able to withstand the might of the Nazi army for over a month, with a tiny fraction of the people, guns, and resources of Switzerland. And tanks probably wouldn't do so hot in the mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
A very good article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../halbrook.html
A telling quote:
Another article:Quote:
SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/Ta...witzerland.htm
Another Quote:
NOt exactly a lot of love lost, huh?Quote:
Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" and ranted that the Swiss press was "either bought or Jewish."
And how do you get that well regulated militia means only militias can own guns? Are you completely ignoring the second part of the amendment? "The right of the people...." And don't try to get off on the 'its a collective right' thing. The same wording was used for the right to free speech, does that mean its a collective right, that noone can speak freely when alone, that dissenters ahve no right to free speech? A collective right is no right.
What do others think about how far the amendment should extend:
Machineguns? (buildable from common hardware parts) Flamethrowers? (Again, buildable from common parts). RPGs? (again, buildable form common parts) Tanks? (Not so easy, but with the right tools one can make an armored bulldozer). Fighter Planes (You can build planes from kits, and adding guns can't be too hard). Bombs? Just get a lot of fertilizer.
Crazed Rabbit
Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" and ranted that the Swiss press was "either bought or Jewish."
NOt exactly a lot of love lost, huh?
You can find Goebells saying that about just about any country , even pre-Hitler Germany .
Assassin the only place I draw the line is nukes and diseases like small pox.
So , for example . If someone really hated Jews and decided to go out and kill some he could do it with a tank instead of a rifle .
I guess the police would have had a much harder time stopping that racist militia gobshite slaughtering schoolkids if he was in a MBT.
Or how about if someone really hated the Olympics because it was part of a comspiracy to make people of different races and cultures mix together .
I am sure he could have had a lot more fun if he could have purchased a MRLS at his local store instead of having to make litle pipe bombs .
Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, John Gotti's enforcer turned government informant LOVES gun control. He had the following to say on the matter:
-- Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, mafia hit man and informant, in Vanity Fair, August 1999Quote:
Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters like me. I want you to have nothing. I want you to beg me for your life from the getgo. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun.
The thread has now degenerated into nothing but Hyperbole by both sides of the issue.
I don't get what the artguement is about. Letting people own state of the art tanks, planes, helicopters, and bombs is crazy. Back when the constituition was written it was viable because they did'nt have weapons that could cause carnage on such a scale. People have the rights to own a weapon but not a tank. Second of all since when does a militia need all these to overthrow a government ~:confused: .
Luckily, most criminals here haven't heard that quote ~D . They have fallen for the "axe, made for men" comercial though.... ~;) But they haven't learnt to use the sharp edge yet luckily. :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
But more on the subject (as that part is more of a guns in society), would you think that a handgun would help much vs a well equiped soldier? And would you think that an M16 would help deterrant criminals armed with M16 themself?
The second ammendment specifically mentions guns linked with the militia and if you need a militia to defend yourself vs criminals, then things have gone very wrong somewere.
Since the goverment gotten control of the military (or most of it) and is evil and brutal. Sure your sons or grandsons might not need it to overthrow the goverment 30-60 years later, but I suspect that we're looking on a shorter perspective. At that point, it didn't matter what equipment the people had when the dictorship began.Quote:
Second of all since when does a militia need all these to overthrow a government .
No, Love of God is in the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I don't know...
Third Base!
~:)
Seamus
I strongly believe that disarm you would make everyone safer, including you.......~:grouphug:Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Ever hear of a little thing called the letter vs. the spirit? Words are what our consitution is written in but they are only vessels, intended to convey a meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If you want to make your little closed-minded stand on a very tenuous split hair of semantics, then be my guest. But I might as well turn right around and insist that since the Constitution begins with "We the People", and no one who wrote it or was alive during the writing is still alive today, then obviously this "We" does not apply to us and it's time for a whole new Philadelphia convention.
There's a lot of ways to twist words. Especially if there's a small number of them. Especially if you don't use your brain! ~D
DA
And it would be especially nice if there would be no ad hominem attacks here - even with a small number of words.
Thanks :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So you're telling me that they were saying the first part as a statement, and only as a statement, because they then were talking about something completely different thing, when they said the second part. Seems like very short attention spawn to me.Quote:
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.
Personally I interpret it that the people's right to bear arms is because if the goverment become oppressive, the people can then form a well regulated militia to overthrow that goverment. It's the only way to bind the sentence together that I can see.
What does this say? Nothing more than what it says there. It's simply a statement, it doesn't actually give any rights. It does imply that the people have the right to form a well regulated militia, but it never says for what purpose. To defend against Hostile enemies? Oppressive goverment? Lawless bandits? Lawyers ~;) ?Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
Crystal clear right? But what's the pupose of it? Why shall it not be infringed? This sentence says nothing about the purpose of this right. And if you're doing a such important document like a constitution, you don't write in laws because you like them there, but because you feel that they have a purpose.Quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
And the only way to do this is to combine these parts of a sentance.
Then you get that the right of the peopleto keep and bear arms it because the people can then form into a well regulated militia and defend the free state and it's lightly implying that it's the goverment that's risky, as crime protection and country defending is the state's job, or the local community. Thus can the need for a milita only occur when the state fails. So you can see that the right to bear arms is linked to the use of a militia. It certainly doesn't say that you can only have that right inside a militia, but the point of it was for a militia.Quote:
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.
And I feel that the original point of the militia is now obsolete.
It's oddly enough the only ammendment that states two facts in the same sentence, without separating them with a semicolon. It's also the only ammandment containing a pure statement sentance without any mentioning of rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Oh I'm not saying that it says that the arms are for the militia, I'm saying that the point of free arms is to easily create an armed militia, when it's needed.Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
Like the point of most modern armies isn't war, but to have a defense if war occurs.
You have noticed that I've been saying that the "defense against the oppressive goverment" argument is obsolete? That battle is placed somewere else nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I know that you feel our government must fall, GC, but when you actually do start shooting and moving to bring it down, don't you think it would be a little less disingenuous to simply admit that you're doing it outside of the law?
I mean, if you win, there's nothing dishonorable about going outside the law. I just have a hard time believing that the government should be constitutionally obliged to lay itself open to violent destruction at the hands of whoever can muster the most kaboom.
DA
No me being armed keeps me safe from evil. And every one around me is safer when I am armed too(except evil people)Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
And btw I follow the saftey rules better then most of the people at gun shops(it always fun to have them hand you a hand gun, barrel first without checking the action:help:)
No me being armed keeps me safe from evil. And every one around me is safer when I am armed too(except evil people)
Didn't you write the other week that someone had tried to steal your gun when you left it unattended at a shooting range ?
And btw I follow the saftey rules better then most of the people at gun shops
Yes leaving guns lying around is really safe .:dizzy2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This is what happened. Behind each shooting lane there is a table for you to leave your stuff while you shoot. And sense I like to bring more then one gun to shoot. I keep my other ones on the table (like every one else does) I had my pt92 Unloaded and action open (so the staff could see it was safe) Some "gangstas" tried to take it. The staff saw them made em' put it back.
I have not seen those people there sense.
And it is perfectly safe wth is it gonna do....get up by it self and attack me?
That says it all Ceasar , you have "gangstas" at your shooting range , and if it wasn't for some vigilant staff you would be minus one gun .
How does that say it all?
I have not told you about the fathers that bring their children their to learn a great family sport. Or the people who bring their families to teach them how to defend their homes.
Do you want to take away their guns too? If so you have never seen a kid smile after shooting his first 22lr!
Wait a sec did Mr. Arnold, governor of California, allowed public use of fire weapons? And then he didn't allowed gay "marriage" (i put it on quotes because you can call it marriage)? How is that? Maybe California is returning to the old ages...What a poor idea of progress...:dizzy2: I mean if you want to have it on yourself in your home, then it's OK, but carrying it on public? :no:
The RIGHT to bear arms is specifiaclly stated in the Constitution. Gya marriage or marriage of anytype for that matter is not mentioned. Its up to the states and marriage once more is not a right. I love how many on the left call immorality progress.Quote:
Wait a sec did Mr. Arnold, governor of California, allowed public use of fire weapons? And then he didn't allowed gay "marriage"
Of course because that old obsolete morality without any material evidence, is the one that keeps progress from happening, now do you see (all) when morality should take a step aside? I've no problem with having guns in my house (though if I had any child it will be different...), but bearing it on public...First: the second amendment, at least, literally, does not sais anything about bearing it on public. Second, I think that the spirit changed from that moment until now. Or it didn't? And Third: this creates a not allowed risk...let's suppose that two persons encounter the one with the other on the street, one insults the other, this draws his gun and shoots, then the other shoots too. The bullet can go anywhere and kill people that are not involved, even for the ones involved, any fight of this kind could end in terrible results, I don't think that this is called permited risk (like drinking wine o beer)...Every person with a fire gun represents an abstract danger, that could become concret in any time...Would you call it progress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
That old obsolete morality is the basis for the government of the United States.Quote:
Of course because that old obsolete morality without any material evidence, is the one that keeps progress from happening
Bad for you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny