60 mins Hand wringing yet again

  Quoted Text Here  

"Right wing", "gun", and "nut" don't necessarily belong together. If you're interested in thoughts instead of labels, here's a couple -
Guns are not necessary for violence. Enemies foreign and domestic have done very well with box cutters, home made explosives, etc. It's the INTENT, rather than the tool, that's important.
I really, truly believe the general population should have the means and the will to overpower the "government" if it becomes necessary. We've done it sucessfully (18th century), failed at it (19th century) and there are some that believe it may be necessary again. This is the ONLY way that we preserve real freedom.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Funny...a few years ago, two politicians from both sides of the issue were debating "gun control". The "informed smart guy" made the same point you just made. The "liberal hand-wringer" tried to correct him, by pointing out that back in the late 18th century....we did *not* try to overpower *our* government...but that we were attempting to throw out the British!
(Sad, how people like this get appointed to positions of power and authority; sad that they end up educating our kids; etc...)
The biggest reason for The Second Amendment, was that it demonstrated that the government trusts its citizenry enough, to even let them be self-armed.

Greg Heilers wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Does anybody else see the irony in the above statement???
David Erbas-White

  Quoted Text Here  
The constitution gets its sovereignty from the citizens. Those citizens bestow "limited" power onto the government.
The government didn't like that very much and was jealous of the powers other governments had over citizens so went way overboard on regulations, permanant employees, and accumulating the "trappings of government" over the years.
Now the government DOES control the people and even the tiniest challenge to the second amendment must be viewed in this context.
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Nor do socialists and other oppressors.

  Quoted Text Here  
Yup. The REAL reason for the second ammendment is that the founding fathers didn't trust ANY government, even the new ideal they were creating. They certainly learned from the British. I wish they were around today to finish what they started 230 years ago.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in and the West in general into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Zombie congress!?
Zombie senate!?
What about Strom Thurman? Is he old and dead enough?

Wow! All you Firearm Crazies (see I'm no longer saying Gun Nuts) are certainly giving the Feds something to think about. I'm sure that the ATFE goons monitoring this site are happily filling out paperwork to update their "watch list" files.
Keeping the government in line and questioning authority is the duty of every US citizen -- but the "right" to own a weapon that can blow a Hummer off the road from a mile away is neither neccessary nor patriotic -- it's borderline psychotic. The right to bear arms isn't a blank check for every paranoid fringe survivalist to stock up for armageddon and endanger the 80% of Americans who don't need firearms to feel empowered.
David M.

  Quoted Text Here  
Perhaps...but if they are, it tends to prove my original thesis (that they may need to be reined in) doesn't it?
  Quoted Text Here  
Hummer a mile away... Do you know what weapon that is, and where I can get one? <GRIN> Moderation in all things; but the most dangerous thing about that weapon is that it's forbidden. We all know the phrase "slippery slope" and the bottom of that one is children being suspended from school for posessing a PICTURE of a gun (which has already happened).
I too would also be uncomfortable with a neighbor who has a TOW missile in the hall closet; but I'd rather die in a society where a citizen is assumed responsible than live in one where freedoms are sacrificed for my safety.

  Quoted Text Here  
Any former Soviet-block country can provide you with those weapons for a nominal fee.
Now everyone stop feeding the trolls.

Actually you will probably be on that list as someone who can be trusted not to have any guns to cause the BATFE any headaches if they were ever to get the go-ahead from any future gun-grabbing administration/congress. You seem to already gone down the slippery slope of no guns whatsoever.
An armed society is also a safer society, just look at the crime rate in the UK and Australia since the guns have been confiscated from law abiding citizens. Using the 'assault weapon', 'safety', 'for the children', and 'reasonable regulation' shields for the last few decades, the government here almost did the same thing. If it were not for the dedicated opposition of the NRA, it would have happened. Too bad the UK and the Aussies did not have an equivalent organization.
Also, you use of name calling ('firearm crazies') doesn't work with most people any more. With the proliferation of alternate news media and information sources, those old leftist, statist tactics just don't work. Your position is one that is opposed by a vast majority of the American public and that gap is widening every day.
Joe Wooten

What do you mean, "blow a hummer off the road from a mile away'? Any weapon that could do that falls under the category of destructive devices and is already verboten. The 50 cal Barrette or other rifles of that ilk are not even close to that in power. These are very large machines, in excess of 30 lbs and more than 50 inches in length. They are not easily carried nor can they be concealed. Each cartridge is a hand-loaded proposition and at that, costs more than $4.00 each. Will they shoot through a wall or through a car? Yes, but so will a 3006 or a 300 Win mag, two very common big game rounds. The 50 cal is not a magic device nor is it a mass killing machine of terrible power. It has not been used by terrorists to attack any one even though it has been widely available since the late 70s, why? Because it is inefficient. Meanwhile, gasoline is available at any corner station. Rigged with an improvised trigger, a gallon of gasoline would devastate a large area very easily and could be both concealed and transported with ease.
Hysterics and miss-information concerning firearms is rampant. Don't add to it by repeating hyperbole, it benefits no one except those who would hurry us into the realm of sheeple.

says...
  Quoted Text Here  
How does that song go? "Just a trollin'", or somesuch?

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The right to bear arms is so you can fight against the government itself.
It seems to me considering the toys the government has now (as a result of confiscatory taxation several times in magnitude what we railed against at a tea party) even a really big gun is nowhere sufficient.
One would need C3 and aerial cover and bunkers and smart weapons to even begin to survive such a conflict.
Jerry

  Quoted Text Here  
Except that the use of heavy weaponry against the civilian population would turn many people in the military to "rebels",and many fence-sitters and "pro-gov't" civilians would change sides. The US gov't would not bomb cities to get a few "rebels". Much of those "toys" would be useless against armed civilians mixed in with the general population.
Also,one would not go head-to-head against the military,the beef would be with the *government*.

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in
  Quoted Text Here  
A .50BMG round will NOT "blow a Humvee off the road",and not one in civilian ownership has been used in a crime.
A clue;if you don;t agree with the Second Amendment,the PROPER method is to AMEND the Constitution *per it's listed procedures*,not enact laws that are clearly unconstitutional.
Have fun trying.

Funny thing about physics...theres this law that goes something like "For every action, theres an equal and oppisite reaction." So, in order to "blow" a Hummer off the road, you would need to expel the amount of force equal to the weight of a Hummer. Last I checked, anything short or a M1A2 main battle tank can't expel that much force (explosive bullets aside) At worst, a .50 round would shatter the engine block.
I full support an educated citizen to be fully armed in whatever method he feels is correct.
Voting Box, Soap Box, Ammo Box - in that order.
-Aaron

snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says...
  Quoted Text Here  
So in actuality, you support an educated, CLEAN smelling citizen who is armed, correct?
;-)

  Quoted Text Here  
Huh? I bet a few sticks of Acme Dynomite could do it too.

  Quoted Text Here  
Actually the order is Soap, Voting, Jury (you forgot the one that really ended prohibition) and Ammo.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
I support drug testing. I believe every public official should be given a shot of sodium pentathol and ask "Which laws have you broken this week?".