Nocens:
Maybe I don't really care what Bush's or Cheney's positions really are because they're irrelevant.




They are irrelevant enough for you to bring them up.

Nocens:
Maybe you missed the announcement, they're not the same person and they have differing viewpoints on the subject. Cheney has deviated from administration's official line on the subject.


(What is this goat fetish you have? Do you work on a farm?)

This is ironic.

I read the headline for this article and, down the FARK page is this headline 'D.C.'s 32-year-old handgun ban has worked so well that the Supreme Court is considering allowing guns back into the District as a reward to the people'

I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms -- within limits. I own guns, but I don't have a personal arsenal of assorted military grade cannons that can shoot through an engine block and come out the other side. I don't find a good reason for anyone to own AK-47s -- which can be altered back to full auto, or things like a 50 caliber machine gun. (Yes, I know of a guy who owns one and it's full auto and it's legal because he has a dealers and collectors license.)

That mini-gun shown on Mythbusters is cool -- but there's no practical use for the thing in the civilian world. (Those guns start at $65,000!)

There was a time when your average street thug mainly used a knife or a club, but the availability of guns over the years and the changes in society means that most of them now use guns. now, I consider it basically a precaution to own a gun for the protection of myself and family.

My older brother retired last year from the police force and he and his wife now travel the US, working for the summer months at a motor home camp ground and eventually wintering back here in Florida. He's armed. He has a carry permit. His wife, also an ex-cop, is armed.

However, I seriously doubt if they carry anything like the portable military cannons the usual gun nuts seem to demand the right to own.

That big bank robbery some years ago where the crooks wore full body armor and carried machine guns and out gunned the cops was an awakening call for the easy availability of high powered weapons. There's always someone willing to give or sell you the plans for converting your single shot machine gun back into full auto and someone else will happily sell you the hardware to do a conversion.

All legal.

However, while I'm for gun control, I am certainly against any laws which would restrict my right to own a gun.

There's another little mentioned factor involved.

For the majority of gun owners and especially enthusiasts, once they get a gun, they want to shoot it and, often buried where they'll not admit it, is the urge to use it to shoot people. Having a gun in your hand makes it far too easy to use it on someone else.

Instead of going up and confronting someone and probably getting your butt beat or stabbed, it's easier to blow holes in them from a distance and there's a visceral satisfaction with discharging basically a miniature cannon.

I suspect that in many instances, only the threat of prison, court trials and lawsuits keeps some folks from solving many disputes with a gun.

Years back, in the 70s, during the first fuel crisis, in line with some friends to get gas, some pi$$ed off young guy pulled a gun on us over a dispute over who was in line first. He didn't use it but brandished it enough for us to see it and the driver of the car I was in ridiculed him enough that he drove off.

That was a wake-up call.

So, I support the right to own guns, but also support regulation. After all, I don't need the drunk neighbor down the street celebrating some night with an Uzi.

nateinks: I dunno. Personally I think your Glock 9MM isn't going to do much against 10 Marines in body armor smashing in your door in the middle of the night if they *realllly* wanted to.

That's a big "if". In a state of open rebellion, how many of those marines would be turning their weapons against the State? I mean, seriously- how many US soldiers do you expect to turn their weapons on the citizens they're sworn to protect?

This: I love when the threads go in this direction. So, who would win? The death star or the USS Enterprise? Superman or the Hulk? Tetsuo or Doc Manhattan?

I was really trying to avoid replying to that branch of the argument, because it really has nothing to do with the rights of the people vs. the limitation on government power.

SexOnTV: Overthrowing the government is a poor arguement, self defense against criminals should be sufficient enough of a reason to support the 2nd amendment.

No, the fact that the government is limited and shouldn't have the ability to ban any consumer good outright is reason enough to support the second amendment.

staplermofo: If we are allowed to form militias to fight off our own government, why did the south lose the civil war?

Being right or wrong usually doesn't equate to victory or loss on a battlefield.

Rik01: I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms -- within limits. I own guns, but I don't have a personal arsenal of assorted military grade cannons that can shoot through an engine block and come out the other side. I don't find a good reason for anyone to own AK-47s -- which can be altered back to full auto, or things like a 50 caliber machine gun. (Yes, I know of a guy who owns one and it's full auto and it's legal because he has a dealers and collectors license.)

Do you realize that a typical 30'06 deer rifle fires a round that is far more powerful than an AK-47? Much more likely to "shoot through an engine block and come out the other side".

Rik01: For the majority of gun owners and especially enthusiasts, once they get a gun, they want to shoot it and, often buried where they'll not admit it, is the urge to use it to shoot people.

Don't pretend to be a farking mind reader, and certainly don't pretend that your speculations about the buried desires of others are gospel truth.

poot_rootbeer: I don't think the Founding Fathers intended to give individuals authority to rise up in rebellion against the federal government.

I believe it's more likely that the framers intended that should be federal government need to be replaced, it would be done by state militias, operated and well regulated by the state governments.


The Framers of the constitution had just barely completed completed and armed rebellion against a tyrannical government. I think that they did their best to put in checks and balances so the new government which they were building would not need to be overthrown, but they were under no delusions about what it takes to ultimately keep a government in check. The words they wrote on parchment are very powerful ideas but they are nothing without actual power to back them in the physical world.

I for one am glad that you are not a supreme court justice charged with interpreting the second amendment.

Pollexabator: In conclusion, 100+ years of Supreme Court Federalists + military industrial complex = FAIL

NOT. THE. POINT.

The point is this: does the Federal government have the right to outright ban the ownership of any consumer good? The 9th and 10th Amendments imply no.

Nocens: I didn't bring them up, I responded. Again, stop my blowing my goat. It's had enough.


You are responding because they can do no wrong. (And also because you are a semi-retarded half wit). If they successful in their effort to ban guns -you will somehow blame Clinton.

On behalf of all gun owners -thanks for voting these A-holes into office.