The Guardian Plan - Page 51
Closed Thread
Page 51 of 53 FirstFirst ... 4147484950515253 LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 528
Like Tree233Likes

Thread: The Guardian Plan

  1. #501
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I believe their intent was that the people should have weapons equal to the government so they could oppose the government and other world governments if needed. I am not saying that is wise at this time, but I do believe that was their intent.
    I keep hearing that we need to follow the Constitution strictly.

    If that isn't in there then we can't go by intent.

    You can't have it both ways. Follow what it says but it it isn't in there...then believe something else.

  2. #502
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    You might have already said, but for clarification, what kinds of guns do you think people should be able to have?
    Admittedly, I'm not a gun expert so I won't be able to give names and models or anything . I'm good with handguns and I'm good with rifles. Protection and hunting.

    I'm not good with things that fire so many bullets that doesn't require any training or aim to kill (that's not well regulated )

  3. #503
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I believe their intent was that the people should have weapons equal to the government so they could oppose the government and other world governments if needed. I am not saying that is wise at this time, but I do believe that was their intent.
    Right..........and we don't have that right. So why aren't you outraged about that? See, if you want to use the 2nd amendment, use it to its full right (and demand equal citizen rights to military capabilities), or acknowledge that you already have amended its right, and done it willingly, and that further doing so for all of our good will PROTECT us all, not limit us all, and we all agree.
    Jessica80 likes this.

  4. #504
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    Admittedly, I'm not a gun expert so I won't be able to give names and models or anything . I'm good with handguns and I'm good with rifles. Protection and hunting.

    I'm not good with things that fire so many bullets that doesn't require any training or aim to kill (that's not well regulated )
    I guess handguns are out then because you can get 30 round clips for handguns and they are semi-automatic. Also easier to hide.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  5. #505
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    From your link, Gloria:

    The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction.
    Guess what? I call Sandy hook "mass destruction".

    And you know what? Our "Arms" cannot by any rational measure be called ones which can effectively "resist government tyranny". So you have already constitutionally given up your rights, and you did it way back up during WWII when our government came up with the nuclear bomb. We lost, then. So now what? Cling to our guns so that we can murder one another? Its madness!

  6. #506
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    I keep hearing that we need to follow the Constitution strictly.

    If that isn't in there then we can't go by intent.

    You can't have it both ways. Follow what it says but it it isn't in there...then believe something else.
    I was just trying up the previous statement that today's guns shouldn't be allowed because they couldn't imagine what kinds of guns there would be today. I think if the writers were here today they would not be advocating less guns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    Admittedly, I'm not a gun expert so I won't be able to give names and models or anything . I'm good with handguns and I'm good with rifles. Protection and hunting.

    I'm not good with things that fire so many bullets that doesn't require any training or aim to kill (that's not well regulated )
    See I know there are some on here that would disagree with that, but that is not any different than I believe. It is hard to debate when everyone has different opinions even those that are on the same side.

    ~Bonita~

  7. #507
    Community Host wlillie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    6,469

    Default

    It was not mass destruction by anyone's definition but yours so that point is invalid beyond repair.

    Anyone who believes passing a law will take these guns out of the hands of the criminals who want them are more than welcome to believe that, but the rest of us are alternating between laughing at you and being pissed because you are allowed to vote. There should be a common sense test.
    Rivergallery likes this.

  8. #508
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wlillie View Post
    It was not mass destruction by anyone's definition but yours so that point is invalid beyond repair.

    Anyone who believes passing a law will take these guns out of the hands of the criminals who want them are more than welcome to believe that, but the rest of us are alternating between laughing at you and being pissed because you are allowed to vote. There should be a common sense test.
    They have one before one is allowed to enlist, but obviously the bar is set very, very, low. It's interesting actually that both you and your husband chose to work for a government and for a populace you seem to so loathe.

    I chose to work in the private sector (I didn't have to work with "bums") and generally had a lot of respect for both my fellow employees and my employers. I guess maybe that's why I'm not bitter about the private sector. Or Americans in general. I had to really earn what I got, as did my colleagues. It created a mutual respect, both for us and our shareholders. It's a shame that you laugh or are pissed at the people who pay your salary, Lillie.
    Spacers and Jessica80 like this.

  9. #509
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Cling to our guns so that we can murder one another? Its madness!
    You mean like the 3 million people who own AR-15s that haven't killed anyone?
    Rivergallery likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #510
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    You mean like the 3 million people who own AR-15s that haven't killed anyone?
    Yes. Guilt by association can be a real ankle biter. Just like the millions of women who have responsibly used the MAP are being labeled murderers by some and have to bear it, some who are bearing weapons which are capable of mass destruction may lose their rights to them or else be labeled criminals. It happens. The world keeps turning. I promise. I really believe that you/they can live very full lives without those guns. Even safe lives! They can still hunt, or protect their homes, or whatever. I'm truly not crying for them.
    Jessica80 likes this.

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions