I think its time we have a REAL Yet Another Gun Thread for P&N

[WelshBloke]

Two humans that are naked and kissing would be considered a NSFW image. A link with a NSFW warning next to it would be fine, but not inline man.

It didn't show any dangly bits.

 

[HumblePie]

It didn't show any dangly bits.

dangly bits would be porn and not allowed at all. What you had was a NSFW image which isn't at the level of porn. Although porn is also NSFW, but NSFW encompasses more than that. There is a difference man.

 

[WelshBloke]

dangly bits would be porn and not allowed at all. What you had was a NSFW image which isn't at the level of porn. Although porn is also NSFW, but NSFW encompasses more than that. There is a difference man.

Still not seeing why it was NSFW.

Was it the gun, the kiss or the guys with no tops on?

 

[rudeguy]

Still not seeing why it was NSFW.

Was it the gun, the kiss or the guys with no tops on?

Be careful. Humble is a law expert in 32 states and 14 countries.

 

[WelshBloke]

Be careful. Humble is a law expert in 32 states and 14 countries.

I like arguing with lawyers. :twisted:

But I apologise for dragging your thread off topic I shall stop.

And I wont post anymore picture .

 

[rudeguy]

On a serious note: what do the gun grabbers propose someone do if an armed person comes up to said person in a parking lot and tries to rob them?

 

[WelshBloke]

On a serious note: what do the gun grabbers propose someone do if an armed person comes up to said person in a parking lot and tries to rob them?

I'm not a gun grabber at all, but if someones got a gun pointed at you in a parking lot its probably best to just give them your wallet.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm not a gun grabber at all, but if someones got a gun pointed at you in a parking lot its probably best to just give them your wallet.

Ok

And what do you do after they shoot you?

 

[WelshBloke]

Ok

And what do you do after they shoot you?

Bleed?

 

[rudeguy]

Bleed?

Ok

I prefer to keep my blood on the inside of me.

 

[WelshBloke]

Ok

I prefer to keep my blood on the inside of me.

I'm just assuming that if a guy that has a gun pointed at me wants me to bleed I'm going to end up bleeding, if he just wants my wallet maybe I wont end up bleeding.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm just assuming that if a guy that has a gun pointed at me wants me to bleed I'm going to end up bleeding, if he just wants my wallet maybe I wont end up bleeding.

And I prefer to decide myself instead of leaving the decision up to a gunman

 

[Atomic Playboy]

On a serious note: what do the gun grabbers propose someone do if an armed person comes up to said person in a parking lot and tries to rob them?

If they've already got a gun trained on you and the act of giving them your wallet is going to cause them to shoot you, what chance do you honestly give yourself to draw, aim and fire your own gun without being shot? FWIW, I agree with the principle that guns should be legal for self-defense, but in this scenario you've concocted, whether or not you're armed isn't going to make much of a difference.

 

[LunarRay]

Congress, it seems, passed the version the OP included in his opening post but the version ratified by the States is a tad bit different... Fewer commas.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I looked in one of my old law texts and what I found is the wording as written by the OP... But, the notes I made in the margin indicate what I've shown above as being authenticated by Jefferson who was Sec. State at the time.

I then looked in the wiki place and there I find both listed....

So... dang, which IS the one the SCOTUS uses? It may not seem to be much of a difference, and it isn't, but I could make the case that the first bit above defines why and the second bit is the action or prohibition... which then might be a limiter of sorts.

 

[rudeguy]

If they've already got a gun trained on you and the act of giving them your wallet is going to cause them to shoot you, what chance do you honestly give yourself to draw, aim and fire your own gun without being shot? FWIW, I agree with the principle that guns should be legal for self-defense, but in this scenario you've concocted, whether or not you're armed isn't going to make much of a difference.

No? Tell that to this guy

WARNING: GRAPHIC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivljdbm86Cw

 

[bradly1101]

What's next? Home bazookas? It's like allowing gay marriage and therefore allowing marriage to an animal! ;-)

But seriously although I don't have it, I get the attraction. Especially to the technically inclined. I'm sure it can be fun.

But they wield an awful lot of power in such a compact, easy to hold and hide machine. I'm not sure as a species we are evolved enough to handle that kind of 'easy power' responsibly enough for general safety (for many-globally, not you guys). That's not to say there's something I believe can be done about it.

 

[QuantumPion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-HjB6h6bI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

 

[RampantAndroid]

hundreds of millions of guns are in private hands.

I think it's actually over 1 billion.

 

[Doppel]

I think it's actually over 1 billion.

I think the best number has it at about 270 M, although this may be a couple of years old and sales have been gangbusters in the past few years, but there are probably right around 1 gun per person.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...rica-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/

 

[boomerang]

Great thread. Unfortunately, it won't stop the usual suspects from getting their panties in a knot on a weekly basis.

We've learned:

About the different types of firearms.

About the methods for containing ammunition for use in modern firearms.

About the ammunition they use and what the purpose of differing types of ammunition is.

Why people that some construe to have large quantities of ammunition are not by definition psychotics hell bent on destroying America as we know it. That there are valid reasons to possess more than fifty rounds of ammunition. Some reasons are economical and some are related to how easy it is to consume a lot of rounds when having fun at the range.

The top court in the land has on two occasions and in recent history, ruled that individuals are allowed to possess firearms. That it is a right guaranteed under our constitution.

We've had the typical weaksauce arguments about not being able to defend oneself from individuals that are armed or the government that is armed so therefore it is best to have only criminals and the government armed. We have heard good counter arguments to these.

We've heard that there are a lot of guns out there.

Next week, or within the next few days we will have yet another gun thread from somebody who is probably wrapped too tight for our modern society that just absolutely has to tell us that guns are bad and that they are scared of them and because they're scared, guns have got to go so that they may go more comfortably through life. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Paratus]

While your way of thinking is foreign to me, I understand there are a lot of people that share your views.

Besides the basic fact that guns are a great hobby, they do also protect us from the government. One of the main reasons for the 2nd Amendment was and still is, to protect us from tyranny. I hope it never comes to that, but having a bunch of armed, pissed off civilians is always a great way to keep the government in check.

While, hypothetically that's the case. The reality is most gun nuts are really gun whores. Bought and paid for. For example the government can restrict voting rights but as long as it's to restricted to non-whites (unless poor), and guns are left alone, no problems. Of course we fought the revolutionary war in large part due to no taxation without representation.

 

[Agent11]

And my point is, if the government ever decided to disarm the citizens, it would be done. It would be bloody, it would most likely be swift and it would be done.
The idea that you could even have a minute's worth of fight is laughable.

And in some hands a gun makes a coward foolish and dangerous.

I don't know what country you live in, but it would most definitely not. You think if the government was killing innocent civilians en mass the rebellion that would rise up to reset our republic would be contained?

There are a lot more people than there are soldiers or police. State and local governments would refuse to carry out the order, military divisions as well. Depending on how strong the tyrants power structure would be there could be civil war, or the swift capture and trial for treason, or a new constitutional convention.

I have no doubt that the people would be triumphant though.

 

[Zargon]

Congress, it seems, passed the version the OP included in his opening post but the version ratified by the States is a tad bit different... Fewer commas.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I looked in one of my old law texts and what I found is the wording as written by the OP... But, the notes I made in the margin indicate what I've shown above as being authenticated by Jefferson who was Sec. State at the time.

I then looked in the wiki place and there I find both listed....

So... dang, which IS the one the SCOTUS uses? It may not seem to be much of a difference, and it isn't, but I could make the case that the first bit above defines why and the second bit is the action or prohibition... which then might be a limiter of sorts.

to be honest it doesn't matter, they have ruled that 'everyone' should be able to own guns, and a fed appellate court forced Illinois into allowing Concealed carry, so its judicially proven that we can own guns and carry them on our person in public



maybe we can make a thread about how separate but equal should be put back in because who cares what the SCOTUS said?

c'mon now

 

[Zargon]

I don't know what country you live in, but it would most definitely not. You think if the government was killing innocent civilians en mass the rebellion that would rise up to reset our republic would be contained?

There are a lot more people than there are soldiers or police. State and local governments would refuse to carry out the order, military divisions as well. Depending on how strong the tyrants power structure would be there could be civil war, or the swift capture and trial for treason, or a new constitutional convention.

I have no doubt that the people would be triumphant though.

or if ya know, the international media ignores it, like they are in Venezuela right now, it could be 'easier'

but I doubt it would go down easy here. at all.

 

[rudeguy]

or if ya know, the international media ignores it, like they are in Venezuela right now, it could be 'easier'

but I doubt it would go down easy here. at all.

I can only tell you that I know many, many quiet guys from small towns who are very ready for the government to come and take their guns. These guys are not violent, they don't run around shooting airsoft guns in the woods. These are guys that have collected guns all their lives and as such, their guns are part of their lives.

Its not just us loud mouths that would violently object. I'd be much more afraid of my brother in law's dad who is quite the gun collector. Or my crazy old neighbor who can snipe a deer at 100 yards with a shotgun wearing only sweat pants and a tank top in January. There are lots of people who really like their guns.