Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[telling tiger 156]

Proposed......................kind of the operative word there.

I can propose that people get over the fear that the government is somehow going to attack Auburn, Alabama as well, that doesn't mean it will happen.

So we should wait until it actually happens before we speak out against it? That's not a very good plan.

Politicians in this country trying to pass legislation to confiscate guns means absolutely nothing, I guess. I keep hearing some say, "nobody is coming for your guns." Well, some are trying. Luckily they haven't succeeded.

I'm not sure of the point of your second sentence. To my knowledge, no one is worried about a government attack on Auburn. And I'm also not sure what body with the power to create laws you are a member of. The elected officials in NY responsible for the proposal are in that position. The comparison doesn't really work...

The point is that it was proposed and not enacted. Since we are a nation of laws some you may like and some you may not, Tom in Texas can't tell Nick in New York what to do, but is certainly as free as he would like to be voicing his concerns.

The 2nd amendment has been upheld in numerous challenges and laws both allowed and disallowed. People try all sorts of things, that doesn't mean any of them will or for that matter can happen.

"So we should wait until it happens to speak out against it?"

I've never made an allusion even remotely the same anywhere in anything I've posted here. That point has never been made by me.

To not recognize that is a proposed law that would make it all the way to the SCOTUS and never have a chance of being enacted is disingenious at best. This being a practical world and all........a person would have to be thick as a rock not to understand that New York might have different gun law needs and desires than Montana.

The last line was quite frankly making fun of people who claim to want guns to protect us from that thar awful, "tyranny". It meant I could propose that people not fear something so damn ridiculous but that they would fear it anyway. It wasn't really all that complex.

[AUDub 11,131]

The founders are quoted numerous times about the intent of the amendment.

Then why was the Supreme Court case I cited earlier on home defense necessary?

I believe we are talking about two different things. AR-15s are not banned.

You're correct. I assumed you were referring to assault rifles in general. I apologize if you feel I've misrepresented your argument. My point is no less valid.

Also, If you want to kill a lot of people, you should be in a mental institution. That would solve that problem without forcing ones views of guns on the rest of the people in this country.

Right. How do you propose we lock up all the potential mass murderers? Reasonable restrictions, including mental health evaluations on potential buyers, are the best option. Forcing my views on you? Welcome to democracy, where the majority opinion rules over all but the Constitution.

There are a lot of things one can believe or have faith in that he cannot, at the same time, guarantee.

Then your faith isn't very strong. I can't guarantee it either, but I can't allow myself to believe otherwise. I am an optimist, and I truly believe we are exceptional. This is my ideaology.

Leave it to the states? That won't resolve the issue. We must all be on the same page for any proposal to work. This is a national debate that requires a solution at the federal level.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Proposed......................kind of the operative word there.

I can propose that people get over the fear that the government is somehow going to attack Auburn, Alabama as well, that doesn't mean it will happen.

So we should wait until it actually happens before we speak out against it? That's not a very good plan.

Politicians in this country trying to pass legislation to confiscate guns means absolutely nothing, I guess. I keep hearing some say, "nobody is coming for your guns." Well, some are trying. Luckily they haven't succeeded.

I'm not sure of the point of your second sentence. To my knowledge, no one is worried about a government attack on Auburn. And I'm also not sure what body with the power to create laws you are a member of. The elected officials in NY responsible for the proposal are in that position. The comparison doesn't really work...

The point is that it was proposed and not enacted. Since we are a nation of laws some you may like and some you may not, Tom in Texas can't tell Nick in New York what to do, but is certainly as free as he would like to be voicing his concerns.

The 2nd amendment has been upheld in numerous challenges and laws both allowed and disallowed. People try all sorts of things, that doesn't mean any of them will or for that matter can happen.

"So we should wait until it happens to speak out against it?"

I've never made an allusion even remotely the same anywhere in anything I've posted here. That point has never been made by me.

When you assert that one shouldn't be worried about something because it is only a possibility, you say exactly that. "It isn't real yet, don't worry." Kind of like telling people they shouldn't worry about taking care of themselves until they actually have a disease. It's too late then, fella. You should have thought ahead.

To not recognize that is a proposed law that would make it all the way to the SCOTUS and never have a chance of being enacted is disingenious at best. This being a practical world and all........a person would have to be thick as a rock not to understand that New York might have different gun law needs and desires than Montana.

Disingenuous at best? I love these cute phrases some of you use attempting to discredit others. I also love it that some seem to know, without a doubt, that certain things either will or will not happen. Did we go to fortune telling school? Tarot cards, maybe? I got to know how you do it.

The last line was quite frankly making fun of people who claim to want guns to protect us from that thar awful, "tyranny". It meant I could propose that people not fear something so damn ridiculous but that they would fear it anyway. It wasn't really all that complex.

You mean George Washington? James Madison? Ben Franklin? Alexander Hamilton? Those people? Yeah, those guys were clueless.

[homersapien 11,352]

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

The idea that we should arm ourselves as citizens to act as a counterbalance to the military power of our government(s) (local police force, county sheriff's Dept., State National Guard, US Army, etc.) is shear fantasy.

Occasionally, this fantasy is actually played out by some demented person, which is why SWAT teams were formed.

Regardless, if you seriously buy into that fantasy, you are just as demented.

[AUGradinTX 0]

The founders are quoted numerous times about the intent of the amendment.

Then why was the Supreme Court case I cited earlier on home defense necessary?

I believe we are talking about two different things. AR-15s are not banned.

You're correct. I assumed you were referring to assault rifles in general. I apologize if you feel I've misrepresented your argument. My point is no less valid.

Assault rifles aren't really banned either. The only problem I would have buying one is coming up with $15k.

Also, If you want to kill a lot of people, you should be in a mental institution. That would solve that problem without forcing ones views of guns on the rest of the people in this country.

Right. How do you propose we lock up all the potential mass murderers? Reasonable restrictions, including mental health evaluations on potential buyers, are the best option. Forcing my views on you? Welcome to democracy, where the majority opinion rules over all but the Constitution.

Welcome to the Republic.The Constitution says?

There are a lot of things one can believe or have faith in that he cannot, at the same time, guarantee.

Then your faith isn't very strong. I can't guarantee it either, but I can't allow myself to believe otherwise. I am an optimist, and I truly believe we are exceptional. This is my ideaology.

My faith in what? Government? We are exceptional. We are also as corrupt as the rest of the world.

Leave it to the states? That won't resolve the issue. We must all be on the same page for any proposal to work. This is a national debate that requires a solution at the federal level.

No. It doesn't. People in Texas, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming aren't worried about crazies running around with AR-15s killing people. If you are, wherever you live, you can make rules you feel will protect you. Leave the unafraid alone.

[AUGradinTX 0]

The second amendment was written by people who didn't want the country to have a regular standing army. In other words, the intent of the second amendmnet - as reflected in the "well-regulated militia" phrase - was to provide protection for our country (government), not as protection against it.

The idea that we should arm ourselves as citizens to act as a counterbalance to the military power of our government(s) (local police force, county sheriff's Dept., State National Guard, US Army, etc.) is shear fantasy.

Occasionally, this fantasy is actually played out by some demented person, which is why SWAT teams were formed.

Regardless, if you seriously buy into that fantasy, you are just as demented.

Wow. Where in the world did you come up with that? That is so far from the truth I would like to know where you got it from, please. Considering the source, I'm assuming (until you respond) that you just made that up. Again.

You are right that they didn't want standing army. The reason, though, is because they were skeptical of concentrated federal power and an army to exercise that power on its behalf.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[telling tiger 156]

Yawn. Load up the musket President Washington, gotta protect Martha.

[telling tiger 156]

In all sincerity, do explain, what is this great tyranny you fear that you need to prepare for?

[alexava 6,972]

lol

[AUGradinTX 0]

I don't own guns.

[AUDub 11,131]

Assault rifles aren't really banned either. The only problem I would have buying one is coming up with $15k.

You're correct. But they are prohibitively expensive to make them unavailable to you and I.

-------------------------------------

Welcome to the Republic.The Constitution says?

We practice democracy in this country.

Representative Democracy

The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.

-------------------------------------

My faith in what? Government? We are exceptional. We are also as corrupt as the rest of the world.

Our country's ability to endure. We're by no means coming apart at the seams. Any problems we have are reversible.

-------------------------------------

No. It doesn't. People in Texas, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming aren't worried about crazies running around with AR-15s killing people. If you are, wherever you live, you can make rules you feel will protect you. Leave the unafraid alone.

But that doesn't resolve the issue. It's not that hard to carry a gun licensed in one state over the border to another state. This is a national discussion that requires a federal solution.

-------------------------------------

TT has a point. What about the uncertainty of our future leads you to fear for your children and their children's future?

[telling tiger 156]

My friend, IN MY OPINION, it is all rhetoric without the first tiny bit of content.

They're coming to get my guns.

who?

them.

No seriously, who is coming to take an estimated up to 500 million guns?

Well in NY they PROPOSED this law..........

which means nothing.

What is tyranny?

crickets.

Language of fear and scaring maw and paw Kettle, it means not a damn thing.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Nor am I living in fear of people with ARs...

[telling tiger 156]

I live in Shelby County, Al. A bedroom burb of bham. Mostly high end to very high end smaller towns except for the town of Hoover which has roughly 100k population.

The Sheriff here has been reelected endlessly in a county that is overwhelmingly Republican and highly conservative.

I'll quote him.

"I have been called a hundred or more times by people asking me if someone is coming to take their guns. I told them and I will say it again, there is no law that permits such, there will be no law that permits such and for people to say it is a fear of their's is highly irresponsible, if not downright lying."

I agree. end/

[AUGradinTX 0]

Assault rifles aren't really banned either. The only problem I would have buying one is coming up with $15k.

You're correct. But they are prohibitively expensive to make them unavailable to you and I.

-------------------------------------

Welcome to the Republic.The Constitution says?

We practice democracy in this country.

Representative Democracy

The United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.

-------------------------------------

My faith in what? Government? We are exceptional. We are also as corrupt as the rest of the world.

Our country's ability to endure. We're by no means coming apart at the seams. Any problems we have are reversible.

-------------------------------------

No. It doesn't. People in Texas, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming aren't worried about crazies running around with AR-15s killing people. If you are, wherever you live, you can make rules you feel will protect you. Leave the unafraid alone.

But that doesn't resolve the issue. It's not that hard to carry a gun licensed in one state over the border to another state. This is a national discussion that requires a federal solution.

-------------------------------------

TT has a point. What about the uncertainty of our future leads you to fear for your children and their children's future?

Sorry. I disagree. There is a violence problem is this country. The problem is, that violence is very rarely committed with the weapons you want banned. Take away the guns all you want. You should be taking away the mental issues at the root, though. It makes zero sense.

And the main thing that makes me uncertain of future generations' security isn't guns. It's people that progressively feel the need to whittle away at personal liberty because they succumb to artificial hysteria. Lets face it, you are scared. Why are you scared and who scared you? Is your fear warranted? Is overreaction common in your life?

I would suggest you take a step back, think about the situation as a whole and re-evaluate. The fear you feel is smoke and mirrors. WDE.

[AUGradinTX 0]

My friend, IN MY OPINION, it is all rhetoric without the first tiny bit of content.

They're coming to get my guns.

who?

them.

No seriously, who is coming to take an estimated up to 500 million guns?

Well in NY they PROPOSED this law..........

which means nothing.

What is tyranny?

crickets.

Language of fear and scaring maw and paw Kettle, it means not a damn thing.

I find it amusing you use the word fear...

[telling tiger 156]

I am completely unconcerned that you find anything humorous. Meaningless to me.

You have all the BS rhetoic and it has ZERO content. Find some reality in that.

Still waiting to find out who it is you believe to be coming to get all those guns?

[AUGradinTX 0]

I live in Shelby County, Al. A bedroom burb of bham. Mostly high end to very high end smaller towns except for the town of Hoover which has roughly 100k population.

The Sheriff here has been reelected endlessly in a county that is overwhelmingly Republican and highly conservative.

I'll quote him.

"I have been called a hundred or more times by people asking me if someone is coming to take their guns. I told them and I will say it again, there is no law that permits such, there will be no law that permits such and for people to say it is a fear of their's is highly irresponsible, if not downright lying."

I agree. end/

Wyoming lawmakers have proposed a bill to nullify any new federal restrictions on guns, and threatening to arrest any federal agents attempting to confiscate guns, mags, or ammo and charge them with a felony.

If passed, expect Wyoming’s population to literally double overnight.

http://www.silverdoctors.com/wyoming-to-nullify-any-new-federal-gun-laws-charge-any-feds-attempting-to-confiscate-citizens-guns-with-a-felony/

I got one of those. Read up.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I am completely unconcerned that you find anything humorous. Meaningless to me.

You have all the BS rhetoic and it has ZERO content. Find some reality in that.

Still waiting to find out who it is you believe to be coming to get all those guns?

Awesome. You can walk on with your fear of whatever it is you're scared of. It doesn't bother me. Actuality says your fear of ARs is what has ZERO merit.

[Weegle777 78]

This government knows that if they were to mobilize police, Feds, and any other law enforcement to confiscate weapons, that they would be putting those agents' lives in danger and a bloodbath would ensue. Families, police, would be gunned down in crazy firefights across this country. The Feds aren't that stupid.

[telling tiger 156]

I am completely unconcerned that you find anything humorous. Meaningless to me.

You have all the BS rhetoic and it has ZERO content. Find some reality in that.

Still waiting to find out who it is you believe to be coming to get all those guns?

Awesome. You can walk on with your fear of whatever it is you're scared of. It doesn't bother me. Actuality says your fear of ARs is what has ZERO merit.

If you had read what I posted , you would realize I've said I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF BANNING THEM. I have no fear of them. I fully realize it isn't the gun but the potential of mental illness or criminality of the person with the gun.

Very nice moot point you've made here. Keep up.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

This government knows that if they were to mobilize police, Feds, and any other law enforcement to confiscate weapons, that they would be putting those agents' lives in danger and a bloodbath would ensue. Families, police, would be gunned down in crazy firefights across this country. The Feds aren't that stupid.

You're right on target Weegs. Furthermore, how many of those enforcement officers would turn on the government? The real danger is when they have enough people who will never question orders and never consider their own personal values. I sincerely doubt we ever see that though. The best plan would be to divide us, to create a division with a viral hate. We are just dumb enough to throw away our liberty if we believed we were saving it. I don't believe they are coming for our guns but I do believe we are being led somewhere and so far, I don't like it.

[telling tiger 156]

I live in Shelby County, Al. A bedroom burb of bham. Mostly high end to very high end smaller towns except for the town of Hoover which has roughly 100k population.

The Sheriff here has been reelected endlessly in a county that is overwhelmingly Republican and highly conservative.

I'll quote him.

"I have been called a hundred or more times by people asking me if someone is coming to take their guns. I told them and I will say it again, there is no law that permits such, there will be no law that permits such and for people to say it is a fear of their's is highly irresponsible, if not downright lying."

I agree. end/

Wyoming lawmakers have proposed a bill to nullify any new federal restrictions on guns, and threatening to arrest any federal agents attempting to confiscate guns, mags, or ammo and charge them with a felony.

If passed, expect Wyoming’s population to literally double overnight.

http://www.silverdoc...-with-a-felony/

I got one of those. Read up.

Political posturing is a pitiable sight isn't it?

It couldn't survive the first court challenge or any challenge beyond it. It does bring up an interesting question though, one I'm sure you 've rushed to consider.

Why hasn't the justice department taken exception to this? Why no official federal challenge?

Let me help you with that, because it isn't worth the paper it is written on, would never be needed and is a feel good measure for Billy Bob and nim.

I thought conservatives were against government waste? Maybe not so much when it helps them make another moot point.

Let's see, ranchers and farmers without guns? Yeah, that'll work, lol.

[alexava 6,972]

This government knows that if they were to mobilize police, Feds, and any other law enforcement to confiscate weapons, that they would be putting those agents' lives in danger and a bloodbath would ensue. Families, police, would be gunned down in crazy firefights across this country. The Feds aren't that stupid.

the government may know that or may not. it matters not because its not happening and no one wants it to happen. not even the government.

[AUDub 11,131]

Sorry. I disagree. There is a violence problem is this country. The problem is, that violence is very rarely committed with the weapons you want banned. Take away the guns all you want. You should be taking away the mental issues at the root, though. It makes zero sense.

And the main thing that makes me uncertain of future generations' security isn't guns. It's people that progressively feel the need to whittle away at personal liberty because they succumb to artificial hysteria. Lets face it, you are scared. Why are you scared and who scared you? Is your fear warranted? Is overreaction common in your life?

I would suggest you take a step back, think about the situation as a whole and re-evaluate. The fear you feel is smoke and mirrors. WDE.

Oh, you want to talk about my fears? That's fine. I'll ignore the loaded question about overreaction. In truth, I fear a lot of things. I'm not a fan of heights. I don't particularly like flying. I have what I would consider a healthy fear/respect for electricity, seeing as I work on live circuits from time to time. I'm claustrophobic. I've had recurring nightmares involving drowning, Need any more examples?

For me, here is what my opinion on the matter boils down to. We do have a violence problem in America. I believe there are many cultural and psychological issues that must be resolved before we begin to address the rate at which we kill each other in this country. The reason I want to see semi-automatic weapons with large magazines restricted is because, though they are rarely used compared to handguns, knives, etc., they are very good at what they are designed to do. Hurl tiny bits of metal at high speeds in very large volumes with very few reloads. These weapons are far deadlier for that reason.

True, they aren't used often. but when they are, they are much better suited for the task. I'm not afraid of the gun. I'm afraid of the nut that wants to amplify his own outrage by targeting the innocent. Does that sound irrational to you?