Off Roading Forums banner
21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

No more gun control. We here in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia have a new gun law to contend with. I just hope that they over turn it in the courts. We are supposed to register all those nasty guns, known as assault weapons. There real kicker is, the rifle that Patton called the finest ever made, that helped us win WWII is not an assault weapon. It does not have a pistol grip, or a detachable magazine. That would be the Garand.

I guess I subscribe to the Pat Buchannan philosophy of gun control. "If you have to tow it, it MIGHT be too big."

AustnJPR, What do you think of Alex Jones? Radio host in your area. Ever hear of him.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

Thanks Mark, I've put some thought into this!

In reply to:

I am a State Safety Instructor for firearms, archery, and ATV's, and guess which one has more injuries and fatalities? Yep, the ATV's. How about automobiles? The reason we don't hear about them is they have become so commonplace
We accepted the risk of death in automobile for its apparent necessity. We are told to accept the risk of death due to firearms cause it's not necessary. It's necessary to me. If someone breaks into my house and tries to rape my wife, it's necessary for me to defend myself, with a gun.

Like you said, we can't enforce the laws we have right now, how can we legislate more laws into effect and expect to enforce them? It just gives the cops the right to do an unlawful search on the premise you might have a handgun tucked under the front seat of your car.

In reply to:

I won't give up my guns, if that means one more "criminal" in the world, so be it.
I'm right there with you Mark!

Carl, Tampa, FL, 74 CJ-5
If a Jeep can't take you there, Think twice about going..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

In reply to:

.....They were still fighting with spears and swords back then. 225 years ago when they made the constitution, the founding fathers could never have envisioned a MAC-10 or AK47 assault rifle.....What was state of the art then? Handle filled black powder muzzle loading rifles? What's that got to do with laws that can handle the diverse selection of guns that we have today?
It has everything to do with it. Back then muskets and swords were the standard military weapons of the day, and the founding fathers believed that citizens (who were the militia, after all) should also have such weapons, but probably not cannons. Today it's no different (or shouldn't be). Citizens should be able to own assault rifles and light machine guns, but not nuclear weapons or B-1 bombers.

-Dana

Censorship: The reaction of the ignorant to freedom.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

Alex used to have a talk show on KJFK 98.9 FM here in Austin, They booted him off the air for some reason, but he can still be picked up on shortwave. I dont agree with all he says but he can make a hell of a point when he wants too.

http://www.geocities.com/austnjpr/
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

I see there are a few folks who still don't "get it". So, let's examine some facts that are often left out of the debate:

FACT: The most popular big-game hunting rifle is the .30-06. It strikes with roughly 2.5 times the energy of either the M-16 or AK47. This round was developed in 1906 for the U.S. Army.

FACT: Every proposal ever presented to outlaw "cop killer bullets" would have in fact outlawed all jacketed ammo - meaning all hunting ammunition.

FACT: Full-auto (not semi-auto) firearms could be purchased "over the counter" without any special permit up until 1934. Transfers of such weapons, as well as purchase of new ones has been illegal since Ted Kennedy attached a rider to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 (commonly known as the "Firearm Owners Protections Act").

FACT: Not only do the Swiss keep fully operational military weapons in the homes of their military personnel, but every able-bodied male from 18-55 is considered part of the military (meaning there is at least one semi-auto pistol or full-auto rifle or carbine in nearly every Swiss home).

FACT: Despite strict laws, the U.K. is currently experiencing sharply increasing gun-related violence (not coincidentally as drug use is also on the rise).

FACT: While gun violence is indeed greater in the U.S. than in many other "civilized" nations, the same can be said for all other sorts of crimes not related to guns. Despite our drunk driving "law" being quite similar to the one used in the U.K., drunk drivers kill thousands (many more than killed with guns) in the U.S. every year. Yet, in the U.K., drunk driving deaths are quite rare. Same law, different result. Hmmmm.

FACT: There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". It is a made up term used by the media & anti-gunners. By definition, an "assault rifle" is capable of selective fire (full-auto).

FACT: The vast majority of gun-related violent attacks are perpretrated by repeat offenders.

FACT: It is a federal law that the mere possession of a firearm during the course of a felony is automatic prison time. This infraction is rarely prosecuted - instead, it is plea-bargained away for a guilty plea on lesser charges.

FACT: The vast majority of U.S. citizens know nothing regarding the current gun-related laws already on the books. Of those who have taken the time to learn these laws & the impact that they have had, less than 3% have joined HCI - the remaining 97 % belong to the NRA. When you know the facts, HCI doesn't make much sense. Outside of those two groups, there are very few people with enough knowledge to argue the case either pro or con.

I could go on & on, but you get the picture. Bottom line, criminals are undeterred by laws. Only swifter, more severe punishment for lawbreakers will have an impact on gun violence - and crime in general.

TEX

/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif Got Mud?
G.U.M.B.O. Mud Racing
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

In reply to:

It has everything to do with it. Back then muskets and swords were the standard military weapons of the day, and the founding fathers believed that citizens (who were the militia, after all) should also have such weapons, but probably not cannons. Today it's no different (or shouldn't be). Citizens should be able to own assault rifles and light machine guns, but not nuclear weapons or B-1 bombers.
I agree, but hen you kinda proven my point. The constitution should be ratified to either protect the rights it instills in us or take those rights away. As I said previously, the constitution is open for interpretation. That's the way you interpret it. Maybe I can make an applicable case to interpret that if I can afford to build a B-1 Bomber for personal use, who can stop me, constitutionally that is? I have a right to bear arms. Not just guns or rifles but any arms. If you don't think so, then throw out the constitution because the framers didn't know what a nuclear weapon was and so they didn't ban the use of it in the constitution.

I can't own a cannon or nuclear missle because it's not practical. And in the case of a nuclear missle, it's pretty much universally illegal. Why can't I own a cannon? I know some people who have cannons for historical reinactments. Is there any law that says it can't be in their living room pointed at their front door. I'm not aware of such a law, but it could be out there.

I think you have the ideas reversed. Muskets and swords were the weapons of the masses and were subsequently used as weapons of war, not vice versa. Swords and muskets were used for a whole variety of reasons, warfare was just one of them. They were primarily used for personal defense. Brigands on the highway, stuff like that. It's opposite today. Many of the newer weapons were developed for warfare and not personal use, IE AK47 or M16, etc. They were later incorporated for personal use. The constitution doesn't make any reference to "personal defense", "offensive weaponry", "weapons of war", "weapons of mass destruction", "biological or chemical weapons". Or did I miss something? I don't think we are talking about the morality of weapons, but rather the constitutionality of them.

What is the Army after all? It's a defensive organization funded by the people. It's not an offensive organization, or at least it was never supposed to be. The Confederated Army, which was the organization of the militias in the colonies was an army formed for the sole purpose of fighting the revolution. When the war was won, the army disbanded. The citizens went back to their farms and George Washington went into politics. If the need had arisen the army would be reformed. No American weapons manufacturer in the last hundred years has made a weapon for the sole purpose of defending this "country". Weapons are made and used here for defense of home, self and family. I think you would agree that even the smallest hand gun is really sufficient to kill someone if necessary, swords were certainly adequate. Nuclear weapons and bombers are NOT made for defending this country. Maybe for defending it's overseas interests or making us think that war in Serbia was in defense of this country. But in reality it isn't. Nuclear weapons are not applicable under the constitutional right to bear arms because they are not used for personal defense.

But then again, it depends on how you interpret it. And that's the real issue.

But I digress, we are off the subject of gun control and it's constitutional foundation, of which there is none.

Carl, Tampa, FL, 74 CJ-5
If a Jeep can't take you there, Think twice about going..
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"


The fact is the Second Amendment is clear: as Americans, we have the right to keep and bear arms; the government is forbidden to infringe that right.

Therefore, the government that infringes that right loses its legitimacy: it ceases to be a constitutional government and becomes an outlaw.

We must remember: the "shot heard 'round the world" that started our Revolution was fired because the British were marching on Lexington and Concord to seize the arms of the colonists.

Bill Clinton is a disgrace and Al Gore is a joke.

Check this website out:
http://www.televar.com/~bthomas/index.html

Bone stock rigs: '81 CJ7, '96 ZJ. Moab every summer!
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

i saw a bumper sticker the other day that i thought was good "gun conttol means use both hands"
i did not hear the whole story but this is not cool that a 1st grader was shot, regardless if the gun was locked up and the person new where the key was it would have done no good! to have it locked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

In reply to:

.....It's not an offensive organization, or at least it was never supposed to be..... No American weapons manufacturer in the last hundred years has made a weapon for the sole purpose of defending this "country". Weapons are made and used here for defense of home, self and family...... Nuclear weapons and bombers are NOT made for defending this country.....Nuclear weapons are not applicable under the constitutional right to bear
arms because they are not used for personal defense......
My point exactly. The "big" weapons, whether they be nuclear, chemical, strategic bombers, etc. are strictly offensive weapons, useful only against governments, not people. OTOH, you can bomb a country back into the stone age (well, maybe not, we tried it in Vietnam without success), but you can't occupy it as long as the citizens keep fighting back with infantry-level weapons, which are defense weapons (usable though they are in offense)..... and that, I think, is what the founding fathers intended.

-Dana

P.S. I'm not sure there is in fact any law preventing a citizen from owning a modern howitzer or tank, etc..... probably only the 1934 firearms tax would have to be paid. However, except for the rare hobbyist/historian/afficiondo (like that guy on American Shooter last weekend), it would be useless and prohibitively expensive.
-----
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

The bottom line is that all the laws in the world won't stop ILLEGAL gun use. So the low life violates 43 laws instead of 22 ........ More paper tigers that only bite the law abiding. Why don't they legislate a better citizen? Out law low lifes......

GeeAea

Figures don't lie ....... but liars sure do figure.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

In reply to:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. The right to bear arms, as it appears in our founding documents, was put there for one reason. As you said, the whole idea here is that a tyrannous government that tries to snatch our weapons should be put down, revolted against, and no longer allowed to govern our country. That's why we are allowed to have weapons, for personal defense and to ensure that the big guys don't take the rest of our freedoms away. That's what the colonists said.

What's the government saying now? They say "Militias shall cease to exist because they stockpile weapons and pose a threat to society." They are saying the same thing that the British did. "Hey, let's make sure those revolutionary colonists don't get a chance to change things. let's take away their weapons, by force if necessary."

History repeats itself. I think if they push "gun-control" much farther, something radical is going to happen. It has to. If it didn't, this would NOT be the United States of America that ALL of our ancestors fought to build and preserve. Would it?

And that's all I have to say about this. I could go on, cause I know a bit more about this than I do about my Jeep. But I'm here to restore my car and I bet this issue is being hashed out all over the web anyway.

Dana, you sound like a patriot to me man!

Carl, Tampa, FL, 74 CJ-5
If a Jeep can't take you there, Think twice about going..
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
Re: Off topic \"Gun Control\"

I agree. When I was about 5, my dad took me out shotting with him. He placed a half gallon can of juice on a stump and proceeded to shoot it using a 45 loaded with hollow points. By the way, he didn't warn me about how LOUD the shot would be. The shot alone scared the pi$$ out of me. Then I tried to find anything left of the can....little tiny pieces. He then explained that if a gun could do that to a metal can, just imagine the damage it could do to flesh. I had one high level of respect for any gun after that. So guess what I'm going to do with my 5 year old daughter...... My kids WILL understand the dangers of any gun and they will know how to handle them properly and safely!

'56 CJ-5, 283, t-90/t18, 27/44, 2.5", 33's
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top