DescentBB

....as I've suggested before. Now we have some hard data:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-mis ... li=BBnb7Kz

It is necessary that a free people not be divested of the responsibility and means to protect their own well-being. Firearms are not the problem, they're just the convenient political focus/goal, backed by special interest. Men who take no responsibility for their own protection, or the protection of their families have not known what it is to be men at all. Everyone should learn how to protect themselves, and have the means to do so, and any people should be seeking to cultivate a society which empowers people, not retards them or dumbs them down.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think you need to find yourself a new street corner. It is necessary that a free people not be divested of the responsibility and means to protect their own well-being.

even if that means both their well-being and that of their fellow citizens is endangered? Interesting logic so far.......

Men who take no responsibility for their own protection, or the protection of their families have not known what it is to be men at all.

men who equate firearms with 'protecting' anything are making up for inadequacies of the 'man' sort, generally speaking.

Everyone should learn how to protect themselves, and have the means to do so, and any people should be seeking to cultivate a society which empowers people, not retards them or dumbs them down.

and, as soon as they learn that more regulation of firearms makes them and theirs safer, the better we'll all be.

Oh goodie...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Men who take no responsibility for their own protection, or the protection of their families have not known what it is to be men at all.

Actually laughed out loud at this. Thorne's probably seen too many Clint Eastwood movies I guess. Doesn't actually know what it means to be a real man.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think you need to find yourself a new street corner. It is necessary that a free people not be divested of the responsibility and means to protect their own well-being.

even if that means both their well-being and that of their fellow citizens is endangered? Interesting logic ...

You selectively cling to the firearms as causality, when such a jump is not warranted by logic. Logically we need to be dealing with the people who commit murder with firearms, not the firearms themselves. No, your position is far afield from logic.

callmeslick wrote:

Men who take no responsibility for their own protection, or the protection of their families have not known what it is to be men at all.

men who equate firearms with 'protecting' anything are making up for inadequacies of the 'man' sort, generally speaking.

Firearms are used everywhere by virtually everyone to protect virtually everything. Personal, private, professional, law enforcement, military, ... It's an acknowledged tool for the job. It would be insane to suppose that inadequacy were a distinguishing attribute. People use guns because guns are effective.

callmeslick wrote:

Everyone should learn how to protect themselves, and have the means to do so, and any people should be seeking to cultivate a society which empowers people, not retards them or dumbs them down.

and, as soon as they learn that more regulation of firearms makes them and theirs safer, the better we'll all be.

Firearms are already "regulated". You're a liar in support of liars, because the truth is still not acceptable to the everyday American who may own a firearm for personal protection, or know someone who does. Regulation is not what's at stake here. What is at stake, is the elimination of self-defense firearms (and ammunition) from private possession. These political movements are overkill for mere regulation, and the intentions of those in power is in writing, in practice across the globe, and throughout history. Taking away an effective means of defense because it will statistically thin out MOST of the same means in the hands of the bad guys is logically not a great way to make someone safer.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Firearms are an essential liberty. So saith our constitution. A man carrying a concealed pistol in a dangerous society is not a danger to society. It's very important that government be of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the people aren't the ones trying to sway the ignorant, irresponsible masses with dishonest media campaigns to take their own guns away, or make owning a gun something to be ashamed of because an evil person used one to kill innocent people in a public place.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Men who take no responsibility for their own protection, or the protection of their families have not known what it is to be men at all.

Actually laughed out loud at this. Thorne's probably seen too many Clint Eastwood movies I guess. Doesn't actually know what it means to be a real man.

Laughable to you, huh? Maybe you inserted the word "gun" or "six-shooter" in there somewhere funny, mentally, because there's nothing funny about that statement. Was "responsibility" a big theme in Clint Eastwood's movies? I guess that's why you're on ignore.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe you inserted the word "gun" or "six-shooter" in there somewhere...

You literally said "Firearms" in your post. Are you pretending you weren't talking about guns?

We should give everyone a gun on their 13th birthday. That way everyone can feel safe!

Vander wrote:We should give everyone a gun on their 13th birthday. That way everyone can feel safe!

and conscript them!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Firearms are an essential liberty. So saith our constitution.

Sure. So in that light, let's let everyone carry the same sort of firearms that the Framers knew. If people want to go around packing breech-loading flintlocks, I'm all for it!

Sure, now apply that logic to the rest of the BOR.

(freedom of speech and the press before electronics…etc)

Thorne doesn't understand the exclusion clause, wherein you are only guaranteed firearms that are carried for common defense.

And Ferno doesn’t understand the court has ruled differently.

Ferno wrote:Thorne doesn't understand the exclusion clause, wherein you are only guaranteed firearms that are carried for common defense.

So things like fully auto machine guns are allowed to be carried in public.

Spidey wrote:Sure, now apply that logic to the rest of the BOR.

(freedom of speech and the press before electronics…etc)

Speech is speech no matter how it's delivered, and even if the Framers obviously couldn't foresee electronic communications, the act of transferring one's words or voice to another remains the same. But the Framers' definition of a firearm was a device capable of potentially wounding or killing something once every thirty seconds or so, whereas a modern firearm can potentially hit dozens in the same amount of time. Even putting the "well-regulated Militia" clause aside, are you seriously telling me that they'd look at nutjobs trying to bring their AR-15s into Chipotle and tell us that that's what they meant by "shall not be infringed"?

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Thorne doesn't understand the exclusion clause, wherein you are only guaranteed firearms that are carried for common defense.

So things like fully auto machine guns are allowed to be carried in public.

if the national defense calls for it, I suppose you could view it that way. Doesn't give you the right to intimidate others, or not keep them in an armory with the other tools of the 'well-regulated' militia.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:Sure, now apply that logic to the rest of the BOR.

(freedom of speech and the press before electronics…etc)

Speech is speech no matter how it's delivered, and even if the Framers obviously couldn't foresee electronic communications, the act of transferring one's words or voice to another remains the same. But the Framers' definition of a firearm was a device capable of potentially wounding or killing something once every thirty seconds or so, whereas a modern firearm can potentially hit dozens in the same amount of time. Even putting the "well-regulated Militia" clause aside, are you seriously telling me that they'd look at nutjobs trying to bring their AR-15s into Chipotle and tell us that that's what they meant by "shall not be infringed"?

or even the weapons of the time into pubs and inns? I mean, most every town in the West, once settled to any extent, banned public possession of firearms. The notion of public carry in schools, restaurants and theaters is borderline insane.

Top Gun wrote:...the Framers' definition of a firearm was a device capable of potentially wounding or killing something once every thirty seconds or so, whereas a modern firearm can potentially hit dozens in the same amount of time.

Yes, because products of the enlightenment had no idea that firearms would advance in the future.

I knew you would have to get defensive and make a lame reply, but I never dreamed it would be that lame.

Top Gun wrote:Even putting the "well-regulated Militia" clause aside, are you seriously telling me that they'd look at nutjobs trying to bring their AR-15s into Chipotle and tell us that that's what they meant by "shall not be infringed"?

This is a cross between a loaded question and a strawman...someday you will learn to debate properly.

Spidey wrote:And Ferno doesn’t understand the court has ruled differently.

I thought you were trying to ignore me. Guess you're full of ★■◆● on that one, too.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Thorne doesn't understand the exclusion clause, wherein you are only guaranteed firearms that are carried for common defense.

So things like fully auto machine guns are allowed to be carried in public.

Technically speaking, you can. But would you want to swing around a heavy weapon like that while walking down the street? I think it would be rather awkward and a bit annoying.