An experiment: Please define these "gun" terms
- Thread starter JD7.62
- Start date
ewurm;2954735; said:
LOL, wear a seatbelt!
I suppose that's the fundamental difference we have. If someone stripped your right to own an AR15 you'd be disappointed. For me, taking away a right, not a privilege, but a right is a violation of my principles. I wouldn't advocate taking away anyone else's rights, I just want to keep mine. I enjoy them, I don't "need" them. Do guns make me feel safer? Yes! Do I need guns to live? No. However, how long is it before more rights are taken away? What if all the sudden the right to choose what temperature you want the thermostat in your house set to is taken away? Or what if your right to drive your own car somewhere is taken? Some rights are more important than others; like the right to live, however, they are all equally fundamental in principle.
ewurm;2954739; said:
They are deadly in the wrong hands, however unfortunately I would say that guns are being used politically.
Also, where are you from? What is the Northern Coast? Are you from Iceland? lol
unstopablepuffers;2954749; said:
What in the world would you want 120lbs of meat all at once for? I don't hunt, but whatever floats your boat.
Donny417;2954745; said:
It just depends on what you consider a "right". As far as the 2nd amendment ic concerned, I don't see any difference in what they called "arms". You could be talking about a musket or an M60. They didn't know the difference. You could argue that the M60 is something you have the "right" to own under the 2nd amendment, but you would probably consider that ridiculous. I don't see an AR-15 falling under the 2nd amendment either. I see that falling under the discretionary judgment of the people. You can't read the 2nd amendment the way you see fit. In their day it's muskets or nothing. In ours it's the M249 SAW or nothing, if that's the way you want to read it. Everything else is discretionary. It's not a "right", it's a "responsibily". If the people that own these weapons are responsible and can generate a good argument for having them, they will be allowed to do so. If the argument is "rights" and "safety", then we wont have the right to own them.
ewurm;2954759; said:
Well, I believe the constitution should be read exactly how it's written. Arms = guns (not weapons), do I think someone should own a bomb? Of course not, it's not an arm it's a destructive device. but I would suggest that any law abiding citizen should be able to own whatever gun they see fit.
What other reason do we have other than it's our right, as born American citizens, as defined in the Constitution, to own a .22, .30-06, .357 magnum, .50 BMG, or even a M249 SAW. The only reason I can think of, especially for the M249 would be simply for fun.
I certainly agree that background checks should be done. I guess my question to you is if a person is a law abiding citizen, what right do you have to deny him the firearm he wants?
Like I said, law abiding citizens, don't give you any reason to fear. They don't commit crimes, and they enjoy their guns.
I don't see it as, "tell me why you want it and I'll tell you if you can have it.".
I see it as, "If you haven't done anything wrong, and that's what you want and you can afford it, go have a blast!"
Why do you prefer someone to explain to you why they want something simply to have it? This is a form of government control, and the very circumstance the constitution was created to eliminate. We are a free society.
i think if they build it we can own it. and 120lbs goes in the freezer. well maybe 100 lbs. and i do tihink getting shotr adds to your position on this cause
