Do you FULLY support the 2nd amendment?

[PatriotPride]

The answer to your problem is that parents are totally responsible for what their minor children do. If they allow their child to have a weapon without properly training it in firearms safety and use, the parents are responsible for any damage/death caused by their child. Government need not have anything to do with it, except where such a case comes before a court.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I doubt it...

If the Panama Canal had been excavated using nuclear charges, thousands of lives might have been saved from being lost through disease. LIkewise, nuclear munitions could save months of work and money on big projects which require blasting a channel through solid rock. In a world where nuclear explosives were used, it likely wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment for the same reason hatchets, shovels, and hammers front-end loaders aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bigus_D]

If the Panama Canal had been excavated using nuclear charges...

Seriously guys... you are killing me.

 

[2cool9031]

The Bad Guys are goin to get what they want illegally anyway. Why infringe on the rights of the Honest Citizen?

 

[Lex Concord]

How about this: Violent felons can have guns, but if a violent felon gets shot by a law-abiding citizen, it should be an automatic assumption of the law that the violent felon was at fault, if he was armed.

This really just tosses the ex-con's right to self defense out the window, making his possession of a firearm, whether lawful or not, moot.

 

[Lex Concord]

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

- Tench Coxe

 

[cqcn88]

Seriously guys... you are killing me.

Do you have anything to say or are you just going to call this discussion stupid with no argument to back up such a claim?

My only question is if we don't regulate nukes within our own borders, would we still get away with trying to regulate nukes in countries that have border-line crazy leaders (Iran, North Korea, etc...)?

 

[bigus_D]

Do you have anything to say or are you just going to call this discussion stupid with no argument to back up such a claim?

My only question is if we don't regulate nukes within our own borders, would we still get away with trying to regulate nukes in countries that have border-line crazy leaders (Iran, North Korea, etc...)?

Yes... I have something to say. The suggestion that NUCLEAR BOMBS have practical applications outside of a military or other destructive uses is HILARIOUS! I thought I made that clear.

Consider the panama canal. Sure, small blasts could be used (and were used) to clear away dirt and rock. A nuclear bomb, if small enough, could have been used to do some of this... but at that size, TNT is FAR MORE PRACTICAL AND DOESN'T LEAVE BEHIND A RADIOACTIVE MESS. The same logic can be used for basically any demolition project. Note: This project could have been completed with less loss of life if they had better medical treatments for malaria...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Then you shouldn't HAVE ANY OF THAT. You have no business going to college. First off the thief should have spent more time in jail doing jail time. Going to jail shouldn't mean going to college at the taxpayer's expense. It should mean jail time. You owe the people you were involved in stealing from and you owe the taxpayers who had to waste funds dealing with thief. You don't have any business in college where a law abiding hard working citizen could be. A thief belongs working and paying back the debt he owes to those he stole from and the citizens who fed and housed him not out crying about how he needs a gun to protect himself from people like him and his buddies.

You can paint it any way you want, thief and a thiefs cohorts is what it is.

Hold on, Jack.. I never said a word about the college being at taxpayer expense, that's why I said it was fast forward four years and that was after his release.

I do agree with restitution. I'm not sure I agree that the guy in my example has anything to pay restitution for because that, I think, should come from the criminals who actually stole property. That he should have to pay his court costs and the like, yeah, I can agree with that.

The point I was trying to make is that the young man made a mistake. I don't think that succumbing to peer pressure (by just remaining in the car and not leaving his so-called friends) is a crime that should follow him his entire life nor one that should prevent him from turning his life around. I think people need to have a chance to do that and more especially this is true of non-violent offenders. The only thing my hypothetical example offender did wrong was to not tell anyone until he was caught.

Given a different offender, say, one who has been caught numerous times and is unrepentant, lock him up and throw away the key. (theft of others' property is something I'd call a violent act.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes... I have something to say. The suggestion that NUCLEAR BOMBS have practical applications outside of a military or other destructive uses is HILARIOUS! I thought I made that clear.

Consider the panama canal. Sure, small blasts could be used (and were used) to clear away dirt and rock. A nuclear bomb, if small enough, could have been used to do some of this... but at that size, TNT is FAR MORE PRACTICAL AND DOESN'T LEAVE BEHIND A RADIOACTIVE MESS. The same logic can be used for basically any demolition project. Note: This project could have been completed with less loss of life if they had better medical treatments for malaria...

There is something in what you say. Kinetic energy weapons from orbit would work much better; no fallout.

 

[Pocketman]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..."

Well, I guess a lot of us are busted.

We are a nation of laws, so somewhere along the line we should have amended the Constitution to exclude felons, children, grenades, nukes (jury is still out on nukes) and include training, permits, etc. If 1st Amendment rights apply to everyone, then how can there be restrictions on the 2nd, 3rd, etc?

If BGs are restricted from legally carrying arms, so what! They carry them anyway, that's why we call them "outlaws." Careful people, if we didn't have firearm laws, the ATF would spend less time on "F" and more on "A."

 

[rambone]

If BGs are restricted from legally carrying arms, so what! They carry them anyway, that's why we call them "outlaws." Careful people, if we didn't have firearm laws, the ATF would spend less time on "F" and more on "A."

Go ahead and abolish it then, and take the DEA along with it.

 

[bigus_D]

Go ahead and abolish it then, and take the DEA along with it.

FTW!!!

+1!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, I guess a lot of us are busted.

We are a nation of laws, so somewhere along the line we should have amended the Constitution to exclude felons, children, grenades, nukes (jury is still out on nukes) and include training, permits, etc. If 1st Amendment rights apply to everyone, then how can there be restrictions on the 2nd, 3rd, etc?

If BGs are restricted from legally carrying arms, so what! They carry them anyway, that's why we call them "outlaws." Careful people, if we didn't have firearm laws, the ATF would spend less time on "F" and more on "A."

The comment is often made and I'm not sure how many who make it are joking:

Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives? Sounds like a hell of a party!

They're unConstitutional to the core. There is no Constitutional authority for the fedgov to have any jurisdiction at all over any of those four things.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The comment is often made and I'm not sure how many who make it are joking:

Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives? Sounds like a hell of a party!

They're unConstitutional to the core. There is no Constitutional authority for the fedgov to have any jurisdiction at all over any of those four things.

Blessings,
Bill

Another good one is that the atfe shouldn't be a govt agency, it should be a convenience store.

I believe both comments. And no I'm not joking.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Another good one is that the atfe shouldn't be a govt agency, it should be a convenience store.

I believe both comments. And no I'm not joking.

I've heard that one, too. The only reason I added the part about there being humor involved is because I'm of the opinion that alcohol does not mix well with either gunpowder or explosives (at least not when the alcohol is used first or along with the stuff that goes bang.) Of course, if you want to go shooting or go out to blow things up and then afterward start drinking, I have no opinion in opposition to that.

Do note that I'm not interested in any legislation to this effect, it's just my opinion.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I've heard that one, too. The only reason I added the part about there being humor involved is because I'm of the opinion that alcohol does not mix well with either gunpowder or explosives (at least not when the alcohol is used first or along with the stuff that goes bang.) Of course, if you want to go shooting or go out to blow things up and then afterward start drinking, I have no opinion in opposition to that.

Do note that I'm not interested in any legislation to this effect, it's just my opinion.

Blessings,
Bill

AHA, FASCIST! You're not supposed to HAVE opinions...Oh wait, that was something else........

 

[SavageEagle]

LOL. Everyone on this site thinks they support the 2nd Amendment.

Then you have to debate them about the need for permits & licenses, required training, guns in schools, guns in planes, guns for kids, guns for ex-cons, open carry being legal, cops ability to card you for carrying.... ON AND ON AND ON.

I think less than 50 percent TRULY ought to answer YES, given their nanny-state views.

Why do I need a hand grenade? Why do you have to ask? Does it matter? If I use it in an irresponsible way, punish me. If I don't, STFU.

 

[Pocketman]

Alcohol and firearms do not mix. Learned that the hard way at choir practice (Wambaugh style).

We can sell and ship firearms in Indiana. Cross state lines and it becomes interstate commerce, which then involves the Feds, and I don't mean FedEx.

 

[SavageEagle]

Alcohol and firearms do not mix. Learned that the hard way at choir practice (Wambaugh style).

We can sell and ship firearms in Indiana. Cross state lines and it becomes interstate commerce, which then involves the Feds, and I don't mean FedEx.

And if they don't cross state lines except after purchased and owned by private owners?