georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:It's a reasonable question. Where do you draw the line? What amount of firepower is too unreasonable for a civilian to have?

A Tank.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:It's a reasonable question. Where do you draw the line? What amount of firepower is too unreasonable for a civilian to have?

BTW, when you say "civilian", again, you are missing the point. Methinks "Subject" would better suit this debate because you have replaced "citizen" with "civilian".

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:It's a reasonable question. Where do you draw the line? What amount of firepower is too unreasonable for a civilian to have?

A Tank.

So RPGs are fine?
Mortar is fine?
Bazooka is fine?
Small artillery or cannon is fine?
Landmines are fine?

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:It's a reasonable question. Where do you draw the line? What amount of firepower is too unreasonable for a civilian to have?

BTW, when you say "civilian", again, you are missing the point. Methinks "Subject" would better suit this debate.

Semantics. Non-military, non federal/state/local law enforcement personnel. Average US citizen. Joe blow.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:So RPGs are fine?
Mortar is fine?
Bazooka is fine?
Small artillery or cannon is fine?
Landmines are fine?

Oh, I forgot. THOSE weapons make people kill. They are magical. Hell, let's ban'em all. No weapons period. It's working out great for the English. Lord knows without firearms people won't kill.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Semantics. Non-military, non federal/state/local law enforcement personnel. Average US citizen. Joe blow.

So, you must serve the GOVERNMENT to protect yourself from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Right?

Show me where I said you can only serve in the government to have the right to protect yourself.

And I'm stunned that anybody could think that letting any person own a bazooka is a good idea.... which you seem to be implying by your reponse.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Show me where I said you can only serve in the government to have the right to protect yourself.

And I'm stunned that anybody could think that letting any person own a bazooka is a good idea.... which you seem to be implying by your reponse.

Is the bazooka gonna make someone want to kill someone? This is like banning assault rifles. TEERUST me, I can do AS much or MORE damage with a Remington 1100 with a modified choke and without the plug with .000 Buckshot.

ya know kev i agree with you even thought most people here won't on this issue.

the weapon is an inanimate object and therefore cannot do anything people (Not addressed @ you kev) people can own automatic weapons and they can do it safely.

RebelKev Wrote:

ccs178 Wrote:At what point did I say guns should be banned? All I said was that I never felt the need to carry weapons when I've made trips to Harlem. You'd be wise to check yourself before you go off half-cocked with knee-jerk reactions based on erroneous assumptions that you have made out of thin air.

Hmm, I guess after what, 2 and a half years you still have a problem me? I could care. This has nothing to do with carrying a damn assault weapon in Harlem. It has to do with whether or not a citizen can OWN an assault weapon in NYC. The issue isn't carrying a f'n AK, ccs.

Why are you trying to argue and debate with me about something I DID NOT F'N SAY!?

A little basic reading comprehension skills are in order here. Recap for you: Fsquid brought up Harlem. I replied that I've never felt the need to carry any weapons whenever I was in Harlem. You start implying that I'm pro-gun control which, to pull that out of me saying I feel safe in Harlem, is such a freakin' leap of logic as not to be believed. Then you start trying to tell me it's not about carrying an AK in Harlem. Yeah, well no s**t, Sherlock. Where did I mention assault weapons in general or an AK specifically? I'll give you a hint: I never did. Go back and read what I posted and read your replies. I'm talking about one thing and you are arguing something else entirely. I'm not even sure why you replied to my post because what you are talking about has nothing to do with what I posted.

As for there being a personal issue, if there is then it lies with you. You brought it up, I didn't. I'm just amazed that you want to argue and debate so badly that you make stuff up. So, If I mentioned that I like Raisin Bran are you going to rant about abortion?

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but with hedging against the potential abuses of government power.

Name some.

Name some potential abuses of government power? How would that be an efficient use of my time -- take a world history class and you won't have to ask what these could be.

But most constitutional scholars agree that the framer's intent with the 2nd amendment (based on contextual evidence from earlier state constitutions and English common law) is to allow the PEOPLE to protect themselves against an invasion force or the oppression of their own government, hence the justifying phrase "...the security of a free state"...

Every single right in the bill of rights exists to protect us FROM potential abuses of government power. What, I'm supposed to believe that this one is just for hunting and self-protection? Why include the word free?

Preposterous. If you can't deal with the fact that your boy Bush has done more to erode individual rights in this country, and more to add to the power of the executive branch than any other President in recent times, thats your problem. Don't try and contort the meaning of the constitution.

While the bazooka does not force somebody to attack and kill others, it does provide them with a nearly unstoppable means to do so if they so choose.

For example... the famous video of the guy who stole a tank and drove it around LA. The cops couldn't stop him. If he figured out how to fire the cannon there could have been thousands of casualties. The same could be said of the Hollywood bank robbers toting AK-47s and full body armor. They could stand in the middle of the open and mow down police.

Police forces are equally unequipped and incapable of dealing with a lunatic carrying a bazooka. At some point the level of weaponry poses a greater threat to the public good from some psycho getting their hands on it than it poses a public good from self defense.

OUGwave Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but with hedging against the potential abuses of government power.

Name some.

Name some potential abuses of government power? How would that be an efficient use of my time -- take a world history class and you won't have to ask what these could be.

But most constitutional scholars agree that the framer's intent with the 2nd amendment (based on contextual evidence from earlier state constitutions and English common law) is to allow the PEOPLE to protect themselves against an invasion force or the oppression of their own government, hence the justifying phrase "...the security of a free state"...

Every single right in the bill of rights exists to protect us FROM potential abuses of government power. What, I'm supposed to believe that this one is just for hunting and self-protection? Why include the word free?

Preposterous. If you can't deal with the fact that your boy Bush has done more to erode individual rights in this country, and more to add to the power of the executive branch than any other President in recent times, thats your problem. Don't try and contort the meaning of the constitution.

Damn, you took what I posted COMPLETELY out of context. I wasn't responding to that statement you made, but another one. I have been saying what you said for this entire thread.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:While the bazooka does not force somebody to attack and kill others, it does provide them with a nearly unstoppable means to do so if they so choose.

You realize answering this makes me paint myself into a corner, don't you? If I say I think citizens should own anything the government has, it would mean that I support the intent of the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety. If I say there should be some limitations, then it means I believe the 2nd amendment, as well as all others, can be rewritten and changed to whatever the present society believes.

I'll go ahead and grab that paint brush. No, I do not believe citizens should own bazookas (BTW man, if someone can find one that actually works, he's a lucky man), AT-4s, etc. I've seen too many Deer Xing signs shot up by drunk rednecks to know I don't want to put Stinger Anti-Aircraft missiles in their hands.....especially when my ass is in the air.

Quote:BTW, who cares? Last I checked there were no stipulations on what small arms could be owned in the Constitution.

"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."

The way I see it, there aren't any stipulations on the types of weapons protected by the constitution. There is no distinction between swords, muskets or cannons. Strictly interpreted, according to the 2nd amendment, I should be able to have a 9mm handgun and a B-2 stealth bomber if I could get a hold of one.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic. I'm against most gun control legislation but you do have to draw the line somewhere.

dwr0109 Wrote:

Quote:BTW, who cares? Last I checked there were no stipulations on what small arms could be owned in the Constitution.

"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."

The way I see it, there aren't any stipulations on the types of weapons protected by the constitution. There is no distinction between swords, muskets or cannons. Strictly interpreted, according to the 2nd amendment, I should be able to have a 9mm handgun and a B-2 stealth bomber if I could get a hold of one.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic. I'm against most gun control legislation but you do have to draw the line somewhere.

Apparently you didn't read my post above.......that was posted 8 f'n hours ago.

Sorry about that, sometimes the back and forth on here gets so monatonous that my eyes glaze over and I just put in my 2 cents at the end.

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

OUGwave Wrote:The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, but with hedging against the potential abuses of government power.

Name some.

Name some potential abuses of government power? How would that be an efficient use of my time -- take a world history class and you won't have to ask what these could be.

But most constitutional scholars agree that the framer's intent with the 2nd amendment (based on contextual evidence from earlier state constitutions and English common law) is to allow the PEOPLE to protect themselves against an invasion force or the oppression of their own government, hence the justifying phrase "...the security of a free state"...

Every single right in the bill of rights exists to protect us FROM potential abuses of government power. What, I'm supposed to believe that this one is just for hunting and self-protection? Why include the word free?

Preposterous. If you can't deal with the fact that your boy Bush has done more to erode individual rights in this country, and more to add to the power of the executive branch than any other President in recent times, thats your problem. Don't try and contort the meaning of the constitution.

Damn, you took what I posted COMPLETELY out of context. I wasn't responding to that statement you made, but another one. I have been saying what you said for this entire thread.

I'm sorry, was there another way to interpret your clipping of my post and your response?

OUGwave Wrote:I'm sorry, was there another way to interpret your clipping of my post and your response?

You're right. I read wrong. I thought you were stating something about the "perceived" abuses of power of our government to this day. My mistake.