Originally Posted by Alan R McDaniel Jr

If your question is indeed, "Why we should be "allowed" to own _________ (fill in the blank)", then your way of thinking is already that of a subject and not that of a free man. You might need to work on that, because it is a very dangerous way of thinking.

Best statement I've read all day, Alan.

--Wag--

Thanks Wag. It is all too easy to slip into the type of thinking that the controllers want for us. They are so insidious about it that even well meaning and intelligent people fall for it at times. We want to make sure that our children are safe so there are those who want to ban guns since crazy people use guns to kill children. Others say no to this and want to insure that crazy people can't get guns. Then we have the problem of finding out who is crazy. Are you crazy, am I? There are obvious extremes but we know how these things go. There will be a panel assembled to determine what crazy is and then what medications have to be taken to keep people from being crazy and then just deny people their rights based on what medications they take. All of this won't be determined by the medical community (which probably is a good thing) but will be determined by a panel of experts, lobbyists and legislatures (which is a worse thing).

I don't want someone digging into my medical background and 50,000 internet posts to determine my mental capacity for owning a firearm. So we have to be careful what we wish for. There's nothing in my background that would disqualify me, but, the panel could decide that people with high blood pressure shouldn't own a firearm because they are more likely to have a stroke or heart attack and if they did that while carrying then the gun could fall into the wrong hands. Sound ridiculous? Well, never underestimate the ridiculousness of the government.

The Libs would love to hold sway over everyone and everything. We are already inundated with so many laws that it is impossible to enforce them all even if the enforcers knew what they were. This sort of runaway legislating is what happens when legislatures write and pass laws based on knee jerk reactions instead of principles. Nobody even knows what the laws are any more, and if you want to get around the laws, just get a lawyer that specializes in getting around what ever law is in your way.

And yet, schitt happens and all 47% of the population can think to do is make a new law, ban inanimate objects, whip the whipping boy and get back to their latte' after making the world a safer place.

Alan

Originally Posted by jp1

You may have the right but SHOULD you have the right? I think that they should be illegal, and I am a long time firearm owner. Do away with the really good killing guns too like kalashnikovs, ARs and BARs too. If you really want to play soldier join the army. They will give you a really good man killing gun and train you how to use it and probably provide targets too as well as lots of free ammo to train with.

Jp1 .... Are you actually from this planet ? " Do away with the really good killing guns ( A.K. , A.R. , B.A.R. ) " . Listen up ! my 12ga has not failed to kill , my .308 lever action has not failed to kill , my .338 Lapua has not failed to kill , my .22 mag has not failed to kill , even my hunting knife has not failed to kill . In summary I would say that they are all " Really good killing guns " so should they take away these items as well as my knife ? . The specific type of weapon has nothing to do with it , if a person is intent on killing then they will find a way ! if a baseball bat is used , a rock or a sharp object , will you be happy if they ban these items as well ? it makes no difference what the weapon is ! the problem is with certain people not with certain weapons .

The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is defense against a tyrannical government. Would you rather stand against a military with full auto weapons with only a single shot or bolt action rifle, or have a fighting chance because you have access to an equivalent amount of firepower?

The agressive behavior on this forum leaves little room for open honest discussion. Is there NO weapon which people here think should not be owned by private citizens?

Originally Posted by jp1

The agressive behavior on this forum leaves little room for open honest discussion. Is there NO weapon which people here think should not be owned by private citizens?

"Personally, I believe "We The People" should own any damn gun we want, can afford to buy and that our wives will let us have."

I set down my limits earlier.

Alan

Originally Posted by Alan R McDaniel Jr

"Personally, I believe "We The People" should own any damn gun we want, can afford to buy and that our wives will let us have."

I set down my limits earlier.

Alan

I have been following this thread, really giving it some thought and to all the reply posts, and have been trying to come up with some wonderful, wise, thoughtful, Ghandi type post to put down. But you know, it`s been stated already. We The People sums it up nicely. I believe we should be able to own any gun we can afford also.

Originally Posted by jp1

The aggressive behavior on this forum leaves little room for open honest discussion. Is there NO weapon which people here think should not be owned by private citizens?

Aggressive behavior?

When you advocate the removal of ANY of my Constitutionally protected Rights aggressive behavior should be the least of your expectations.

In reply to your 'baiting' question, no.

How about atom or hydrogen bombs owned by private citizens, think that they too are O K?

Originally Posted by jp1

How about atom or hydrogen bombs owned by private citizens, think that they too are O K?

I knew you weren't trying to have a serious discussion. Besides they cost to much, they're single shot and my wife would not let me have one.

Alan