Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2016, 10:46 AM
 
28,675 posts, read 18,801,179 times
Reputation: 30989

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Every single type of weapon has been used in the military. So by default you are anti-gun using your definition.
What about slingshots?


Oh, wait, no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2016, 10:58 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,230,847 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64 View Post
No, but both drinking and driving have certain regulations to keep the roads as safe as possible. Speed limits and drunk driving laws save lives. Universal background checks and limiting certain kinds of guns would, too. I also like the idea of smart guns that could not be turned against their owners or accidentally fired by a child.
No limitations and background checks already exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 10:59 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,230,847 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro View Post
So why can't I buy a Mac10, an Uzi ? A Thompson ? The Gov't can and does restrict access to weapons they consider dangerous. I used to buy M80 fireworks when I was a kid now they are no longer available.

This whole discussion is really academic, esp with Trump in office. Gun "control" is going nowhere anytime soon. Buy, use, enjoy !

But don't be surprised if the occasional wacko uses his Assault rife to kill lots of innocent people.
You can buy a Mac 10 or Thompson. I have those in stock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:00 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,645,820 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
What about slingshots?


Oh, wait, no.

Yes, sling shots have been used in war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:04 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,645,820 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro View Post
So why can't I buy a Mac10, an Uzi ? A Thompson ? The Gov't can and does restrict access to weapons they consider dangerous. I used to buy M80 fireworks when I was a kid now they are no longer available.

This whole discussion is really academic, esp with Trump in office. Gun "control" is going nowhere anytime soon. Buy, use, enjoy !

But don't be surprised if the occasional wacko uses his Assault rife to kill lots of innocent people.

Then you must not be able to pass a background check, or you cannot come up with the cash needed to pay the government for the privilege.

Fully auto's are not illegal, they have just been made a privilege granted by government(unconstitutional)
Our rights are not a privilege
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:05 AM
 
2,405 posts, read 1,447,096 times
Reputation: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
To apply a Revolutionary era gun law on a twenty first century nation is inappropriate, and patently absurd in my view.
Is it absurd to apply the First Amendment to the internet in a Twenty-first century nation? Surely the Founders didn't have the web in mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:08 AM
 
2,405 posts, read 1,447,096 times
Reputation: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by manteca man View Post
You'd think with all the wailing over how evil and... tyrannical people believe Trump and his government will be, that they might realize one of the reasons FOR the 2nd Amendment, which doesn't discriminate against political affiliation.
True. I heard that Soros is arming the left in secret.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:11 AM
 
28,675 posts, read 18,801,179 times
Reputation: 30989
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombleywomberly View Post
Is it absurd to apply the First Amendment to the internet in a Twenty-first century nation? Surely the Founders didn't have the web in mind.
But they did have warships in mind--the most fearsome weapon of their day--and those were frequently owned by civilians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 11:16 AM
 
16,603 posts, read 8,619,550 times
Reputation: 19434
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
Today's fanatical gun owners seem to be a bit misguided about what the framers intentions were when they wrote the second amendment. Times were very different back then than they are today regarding gun ownership. The US had just won a terrible, protracted war for independence. What the Constitution stipulated was that the country should have a well armed citizens militia. One that could defend itself against a truly overbearing government or another foreign invader.

Moreover since there were no grocery chains in post Revolutionary America most people had to hunt for their food using long rifle muskets and the like to find food for their very sustenance. A very different environment than today's modern world to be sure. Simply put, the Second amendment as it was written in 1789 cannot and should not be applied to today's world. The Framers never imagined the vast and wide array of sophisticated firearms that are readily available to almost anyone today.

AK-47's, AR-15's, or any other type of finely rifled high-powered, automatic or semi-automatic firearm simply did not exist in that era. To apply a Revolutionary era gun law on a twenty first century nation is inappropriate, and patently absurd in my view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
Do you have anything worthwhile to offer the thread? My opinions are as valid as anyone else's on here. Yours, not so much. Thanks for playing.
That poster said that to you, most likely because this discussion has been going on for decades. You would understand how wrong you are if you were to actually read the Federalist Papers, to see EXACTLY what the framers intended with the 2nd Amendment.
So as a smart person once said, you are entitled to your opinion, but not entitled to your own facts.
Educated yourself and come back in a few weeks to let us know what you discovered.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 12:01 PM
 
Location: in my imagination
13,609 posts, read 21,399,012 times
Reputation: 10111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
Do you have anything worthwhile to offer the thread? My opinions are as valid as anyone else's on here. Yours, not so much. Thanks for playing.
I do.....you are wrong
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top