|
|
Post by wtrfwlr on Jan 9, 2013 10:59:15 GMT -7
Excellent post Jimmy. I had to give you an exhalt or whatever for that one, I hope that's the good one?
|
|
|
|
Post by WILL on Jan 9, 2013 11:12:24 GMT -7
I didn't read the whole article. Stupid question, since the constitution says I have the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean it's legal for me buy a RPG in Mexico and then walk down Main Street USA with it slung on my back? That's bearing arms right? And when the cop tries to arrest me, it's cool if I shoot him in the face right? That's what I read there.....
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewufcry on Jan 9, 2013 11:42:17 GMT -7
Written well and since he gave permission i am passing it on.
|
|
|
|
Post by thywar on Jan 9, 2013 11:50:18 GMT -7
I didn't read the whole article. Stupid question, since the constitution says I have the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean it's legal for me buy a RPG in Mexico and then walk down Main Street USA with it slung on my back? That's bearing arms right? And when the cop tries to arrest me, it's cool if I shoot him in the face right? That's what I read there..... I'm sure you did that tongue in cheek. ''when the cop tries to arrest me, it's cool if I shoot him in the face right'' and I think if you don't already know the answer to this question then I'd have to question the training offered to Fl Law Enforcement. I don't recall anywhere anyone espousing the shooting of law enforcement and certainly not saying it's cool.. This conversation has nothing to do with shooting anyone.. It has to do with the constitutional right to own a firearm. If you don't like the firearm I own that doesn't make it less constitutional. IF you can buy an RPG in Mexico and legally bring it into the US then I'd say yes you can walk down the street with it because nobody will know what it is.. and I'd bet that would include half of ALL LEOs.. I think we're all trying to have a responsible discussion about our rights. Yours wasn't part of that. IMO |
|
|
|
Post by WILL on Jan 9, 2013 13:10:21 GMT -7
I didn't read the whole article. Stupid question, since the constitution says I have the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean it's legal for me buy a RPG in Mexico and then walk down Main Street USA with it slung on my back? That's bearing arms right? And when the cop tries to arrest me, it's cool if I shoot him in the face right? That's what I read there..... I'm sure you did that tongue in cheek. The article certainly does espouse shooting law enforcement if they violate the constitution, and Marc is correct. This is not a cut and dry issue. ''when the cop tries to arrest me, it's cool if I shoot him in the face right'' and I think if you don't already know the answer to this question then I'd have to question the training offered to Fl Law Enforcement. I don't recall anywhere anyone espousing the shooting of law enforcement and certainly not saying it's cool.. This conversation has nothing to do with shooting anyone.. It has to do with the constitutional right to own a firearm. If you don't like the firearm I own that doesn't make it less constitutional. IF you can buy an RPG in Mexico and legally bring it into the US then I'd say yes you can walk down the street with it because nobody will know what it is.. and I'd bet that would include half of ALL LEOs.. I think we're all trying to have a responsible discussion about our rights. Yours wasn't part of that. IMO The article certainly does espouse shooting law enforcement if they violate the constitution. That's the whole point of the article. Marc is correct about my point. This is not a cut and dry issue. |
|
|
|
Post by mountainmark on Jan 9, 2013 13:10:58 GMT -7
I won't speak for Will, but I took his post as saying: "Where is the limit as to what weapon should be legal?" THAT is the core of the problem. It's a difficult problem. Personally I would not want an apache helecopter or tank in the hands of just anyone. But then I would also want the ability to defend myself against one if the govt. has one. So maybe anti-aircraft and surface to air missles should be allowed as well as tank busters. I'm all for the right to bear arms but at some point there should be a limit. I'm not even sure i agree with myself..... |
|
|
|
Post by wtrfwlr on Jan 9, 2013 13:17:58 GMT -7
I think it's obvious that Will must be playing devils advocate with that by posing the most outlandish preposterous counter question much like the lamestream media and the ultra leftwing liberal wackos are doing every moment now. They are playing with that type of playbook, "Stupid question" and "I didn't read it but...."
They are all acting like little children on a playground where one child gets mad or hurt and blurts out the most ridiculous thing they can think of like...."I'll just ______________ forever and ever and ever!" There is no logic, common sense or rational behind the comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by WILL on Jan 9, 2013 13:33:35 GMT -7
I think it's obvious that Will must be playing devils advocate with that by posing the most outlandish preposterous counter question much like the lamestream media and the ultra leftwing liberal wackos are doing every moment now. They are playing with that type of playbook, "Stupid question" and "I didn't read it but...." They are all acting like little children on a playground where one child gets mad or hurt and blurts out the most ridiculous thing they can think of like...."I'll just ______________ forever and ever and ever!" There is no logic, common sense or rational behind the comment. If you take the article at face value, then the government has already run rough-shot all over the constitution, and you should have started killing cops long ago. If you believe this article, than why are you still here? You should be dead, in jail or in a more free country..... Bottom line, society has moved away from a literal translation of the constitution way back when they banned the tommy-gun and sawed-off shotguns. Or maybe it was when they developed weapons of mass destruction and made it so individuals couldn’t posses them. Why can’t you own a functional M1 Abrahams with ammo right now? Most believe the constitution protects our rights to own firearms with the capacity to protect ourselves and fight against a corrupt government. Exactly what class of weapons that may be is up for debate. Assault weapons are on the forefront of that debate right now…..So I’ll ask again, why can’t I walk down main street right now with an RPG and shoot cops who try to stop me? That’s basically what this guy’s advocating. My question’s not so stupid if you think a little deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by wtrfwlr on Jan 9, 2013 13:54:46 GMT -7
Very well. Here is the way I feel about this.
If my local police dept., who are the experts at keeping me and themselves safe have decided that the proper weapon to do that job is an semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto handgun then why is the government telling me that I cannot own the very same thing to defend myself against the same threats?
It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by thywar on Jan 9, 2013 14:29:28 GMT -7
Because Homicide is a crime...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Jan 9, 2013 14:52:45 GMT -7
If it's owned by law enforcement I should be able to own it. If it protects a congressman, I should be allowed to own it for my, and my families protection. To answer your rocket launcher question. You should be able to own one. In fact, you can own one with a title II stamp. The same for your tommy gun, sawed off shotgun. Where the law went off the rails all together was in 1986 when it was made illegal to sell an automatic weapon to the citizens of this nation made after that date. The NFA, did restrict and refine, but not outright ban. The larger question is not should you shoot a cop in the face. It's should the cop be on the opposition to begin with. To my knowledge a LEO's oath reads along this line: “I swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of xxxxxxx and support the Constitution and laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of police officer according to the Constitution and laws of this State.” Thats state of Maryland btw. This one is from the International association of chiefs of police. " On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the
public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions."
I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."That btw was quoted here: www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/ba26623b-da5a-4b36-a8e3-09497a911d91/FLBRC-LEV1-2011-07.aspxNo the question is not whether you should shoot a cop in the face with a rocket launcher, the question is should the law enforcement officer ever find themselves on the wrong side of the constitution after swearing an oath to defend it. If you take the article at face value, then the government has already run rough-shot all over the constitution, and you should have started killing cops long ago. If you believe this article, than why are you still here? You should be dead, in jail or in a more free country..... Bottom line, society has moved away from a literal translation of the constitution way back when they banned the tommy-gun and sawed-off shotguns. Or maybe it was when they developed weapons of mass destruction and made it so individuals couldn’t posses them. Why can’t you own a functional M1 Abrahams with ammo right now? Most believe the constitution protects our rights to own firearms with the capacity to protect ourselves and fight against a corrupt government. Exactly what class of weapons that may be is up for debate. Assault weapons are on the forefront of that debate right now…..So I’ll ask again, why can’t I walk down main street right now with an RPG and shoot cops who try to stop me? That’s basically what this guy’s advocating. My question’s not so stupid if you think a little deeper. |
|
|
|
Post by mountainmark on Jan 9, 2013 15:15:14 GMT -7
If it's owned by law enforcement I should be able to own it. If it protects a congressman, I should be allowed to own it for my, and my families protection. To answer your rocket launcher question. You should be able to own one. In fact, you can own one with a title II stamp. The same for your tommy gun, sawed off shotgun. Where the law went off the rails all together was in 1986 when it was made illegal to sell an automatic weapon to the citizens of this nation made after that date. The NFA, did restrict and refine, but not outright ban. The larger question is not should you shoot a cop in the face. It's should the cop be on the opposition to begin with. To my knowledge a LEO's oath reads along this line: “I swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of xxxxxxx and support the Constitution and laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of police officer according to the Constitution and laws of this State.” Thats state of Maryland btw. This one is from the International association of chiefs of police. " On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the
public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions."
I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."That btw was quoted here: www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/ba26623b-da5a-4b36-a8e3-09497a911d91/FLBRC-LEV1-2011-07.aspxNo the question is not whether you should shoot a cop in the face with a rocket launcher, the question is should the law enforcement officer ever find themselves on the wrong side of the constitution after swearing an oath to defend it. ] +1 good explaination |
|
|
|
Post by onidah on Jan 9, 2013 15:21:19 GMT -7
I'm with cwi555 on this one.
The second amendment doesn't say: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear small arms, shall not be infringed."
Nor does it say: "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 (except in the case of weapons deemed dangerous enough to inflict massive destruction such as those weapons commonly used in modern warfare)." I get so frustrated when I hear people saying things like, "Oh, the second amendment only applies to muskets because that is all they had back then."
Nor does it say: "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 (except when technological advances in the future are able to produce weapons capable of firing at a rate of more than 6 shots per minute or in the case of calibers exceeding 0.5 inches in diameter). If the founding fathers would have had access to AR-15/M4s with 30 round magazines they would have wanted every able-bodied citizen to own and practice with one.
Nor does it say: "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 (except for citizens of the United States who will never need to overthrow an oppressive government again whereas no such infringements are to be placed on citizens in countries currently striving to overthrow oppressive governments in other parts of the world)." Why are some people perfectly OK with rebel Joe Citizen in Syria or Lybia being armed with an RPG, mortars, or FIM-92s, but don't want Joe Citizen in the United States to have access to the same tools?
It says: "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 - period"
No restrictions. No limitations. No infringements.
Unfortunately, we've lost a lot of what this amendment was designed to protect over the years. The question is, where do we draw the line? How much more do we give up access to?
Onidah
|
|
|
|
Post by WILL on Jan 9, 2013 15:44:29 GMT -7
Very well. Here is the way I feel about this. If my local police dept., who are the experts at keeping me and themselves safe have decided that the proper weapon to do that job is an semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto handgun then why is the government telling me that I cannot own the very same thing to defend myself against the same threats? It's as simple as that. That’s a great argument. Personally, I think they will just ban new production despite what we think or believe. They’ve done it before. I seriously doubt door to door gun collections will become a reality anytime in the foreseeable future. Thank God you and I won’t have to shoot any cops until then…. |
|
|
|
Post by WILL on Jan 9, 2013 16:24:21 GMT -7
If it's owned by law enforcement I should be able to own it. If it protects a congressman, I should be allowed to own it for my, and my families protection. To answer your rocket launcher question. You should be able to own one. In fact, you can own one with a title II stamp. The same for your tommy gun, sawed off shotgun. Where the law went off the rails all together was in 1986 when it was made illegal to sell an automatic weapon to the citizens of this nation made after that date. The NFA, did restrict and refine, but not outright ban. The larger question is not should you shoot a cop in the face. It's should the cop be on the opposition to begin with. To my knowledge a LEO's oath reads along this line: “I swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of xxxxxxx and support the Constitution and laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of police officer according to the Constitution and laws of this State.” Thats state of Maryland btw. This one is from the International association of chiefs of police. " On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the
public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions."
I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."That btw was quoted here: www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/ba26623b-da5a-4b36-a8e3-09497a911d91/FLBRC-LEV1-2011-07.aspxNo the question is not whether you should shoot a cop in the face with a rocket launcher, the question is should the law enforcement officer ever find themselves on the wrong side of the constitution after swearing an oath to defend it. If you take the article at face value, then the government has already run rough-shot all over the constitution, and you should have started killing cops long ago. If you believe this article, than why are you still here? You should be dead, in jail or in a more free country..... Bottom line, society has moved away from a literal translation of the constitution way back when they banned the tommy-gun and sawed-off shotguns. Or maybe it was when they developed weapons of mass destruction and made it so individuals couldn’t posses them. Why can’t you own a functional M1 Abrahams with ammo right now? Most believe the constitution protects our rights to own firearms with the capacity to protect ourselves and fight against a corrupt government. Exactly what class of weapons that may be is up for debate. Assault weapons are on the forefront of that debate right now…..So I’ll ask again, why can’t I walk down main street right now with an RPG and shoot cops who try to stop me? That’s basically what this guy’s advocating. My question’s not so stupid if you think a little deeper. I wouldn't give up a single one of my guns. I fully expect revolution the day the government goes door to door to take peoples guns away. Everyone knows that. Just the thought of the ATF kicking in law abiding citizens doors to seize the family guns is enraging to any red blooded American. It ain't happening for just that reason. The article's author is getting off on some sick cop killing fantasy with his constitutional chest beating. If he really believed a single word he spewed, he would have already acted since none of us possess or will ever be allowed to possess a long list of weapons technology. Just as Onidah posted, the constitution is already seriously compromised because private citizens can’t get their hands on WMDs. FYI, it’s that way because America wants it like that. Americans don’t want private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, tanks, bombs, etc. Why isn’t he on his soap box about private ownership of that stuff? Why isn’t he killing cops over those issues? I’ll tell you why, because we would laugh him right out the door. Because he’s captain obvious troll, looking to score some internet glory off a hot topic. He likes appearing like a bad boy. Look, America is struggling with a difficult decision on re-instating a stricter Brady Bill. That’s all. We already went through the Brady Bill and it was still America. We’re nowhere near talking about shooting cops just yet, and this guy is a dangerous glory hound. |
|
