Congress debates plastic gun ban

civ·il lib·er·ty
noun
noun: civil liberty

1.
the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, esp. with regard to freedom of action and speech.
individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.


I would say attempting to strip citizens of their right to bear arms, AKA self-preservation, while at the same time promising to give us a blue or green bar on the Homeland Security Advisory System is exactly what our friend Benny "Hunnadollabill" Franklin was referencing.

Originally Posted by Sanguine84

RPGs or Tanks or Nukes... Just the firearms. BTW, flamethrowers aren't illegal....

I totally want a tank...preferably in pink.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

in my opinion, there can be no doubt about what the authors meant concerning their intentions.

Right..."your opinion." That's exactly what I was saying 3 posts ago. Everyone has an opinion. Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. The bottom line is...people don't agree.

Originally Posted by deedeeiam

I totally want a tank...preferably in pink.



Right..."your opinion." That's exactly what I was saying 3 posts ago. Everyone has an opinion. Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. The bottom line is...people don't agree.

Everyone has an opinion, yes. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, yes. Everyone's opinion is legitimate, no. Everyone's opinion is based on rational observations, no.

For example, According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world.

The Constitution speaks for itself. It needs no interpretation. It's purpose is clear cut. To protect the Citizens of the United States from tyrannical government.

Oh, and I will buy you that pink tank if you'll buy me a Tuatara.

Congress renews undetectable gun ban just in time

http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...10&id=17178272

Originally Posted by Sanguine84

civ·il lib·er·ty
noun
noun: civil liberty

1.
the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community, esp. with regard to freedom of action and speech.
individual rights protected by law from unjust governmental or other interference.


I would say attempting to strip citizens of their right to bear arms, AKA self-preservation, while at the same time promising to give us a blue or green bar on the Homeland Security Advisory System is exactly what our friend Benny "Hunnadollabill" Franklin was referencing.

Yes, I understand what you mean, but my point is you misused the quote. If you research the meaning of that quote, you'll see what I mean.

Focal, I appreciate your candor. I did some brief research and you are correct. In the context of which it was written, it does mean something different. I love learning.

While I cede the point to you, I still believe it applies as a valid quote and with a minor paraphrase is legitimate to the context of today:

"Those who would abandon the freedoms afforded by the Constitution for a sense of security deserve neither."

Originally Posted by deedeeiam

Right..."your opinion." That's exactly what I was saying 3 posts ago. Everyone has an opinion. Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. The bottom line is...people don't agree.

I suppose. But it's HOW people come to their opinions, and how honest they are in expressing the TRUTH, that matters. From what I have seen, the only valid argument the anti-gunners seem to be able to come up with is that the Second Amendment can't really mean what it says, simply because they don't WANT it to mean that. When asked to provide documented historical facts to support their position, they simply start waving their arms and screaming about how all the people who happen to like guns are "knuckle dragging neanderthals", like that will suffice as their "one strike knock out" position to support their argument.

Often times they will fall back to the position that the Second Amendment is outdated because the authors couldn't possibly have foreseen the advances in weapons technology today. However, the First Amendment is completely immune to the technological advances in communication technology of today, and they can say that without breaking stride, or laughing at themselves, regardless of the illogicalness of the argument. Again, not a shred of evidence to support their position other than an emotionally laced appeal for "reasonableness" and/or "compromise" on the gun supporters side. "Reasonableness" meaning that THEY are reasonable, and YOU are not. And "compromise" meaning that they want to ban ALL guns, but they will settle (*now*) for just half of them.

And, of course, they will normally ask if it is OK for private individuals to own nukes. The answer to that, of course, is that nukes are not firearms in any sense of the term. They are POLITICAL weapons. They are not used in war. The THREAT of using them is employed instead. They require direct and specific approval by the heads of state to be employed in ANY situation.

But LITERALLY, if you want to consider them as merely arms, then yes, anyone who could afford a nuke and find someone to sell them one (or make it themselves) should be able to own one. Would I like it myself to live next to someone who had one? No. But that is the penalty of freedom. I have to put up with the rights of others if I wish to retain my own rights. By allowing a simple majority to take away YOUR rights implies that my own rights can be taken way by another simple majority. THAT is why we are a Constitutional Republic and NOT a Democracy.

Anyway, back to the point, I would treat a neighbor (not like I would EVER live in a neighborhood where someone would have that kind of free cash laying around!) owning a nuclear weapon the same as I would treat a neighbor who decided to start a pig or chicken farm next to me. I would move as far away from them as I could. Preferably up wind. I wouldn't like them exercising their right, but that's the breaks. I value my freedom, so I have to concede the point that they have every right to exercise their own rights, regardless of what I may think about it. Who knows? Someday I may want to do something that they won't particularly like. Like breeding snakes.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Specifically in relation to the Second Amendment, Congress did exactly this and published a document in February, 1982 entitled "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session." In summation on page 12 of this 175 page document, it states:

BTW, apparently this entire text is available online -> http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm