GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-16-2012, 14:57   #21
Providence
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.
Bados, hang around for a while and listen to the arguments for a traditional reading of the second amendment. One of the original reasons for the second amendment was as a protection from a Government that turns tyrannical. This isn't a tin foil hat type concept. It is established Constitutional thought. The reason you are getting flack is because your argument is the same emotionally based argument the groups like the Brady Campaign use. You are getting grouped in with the anti-gun crowd. You aren't one of those kind are you?


Please vote! It's that important!
__________________
Georgia Club Member #106
Tactical Shotgun Club #58
Rimfire Club #193
Snubbie Club #18
Providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 17:56   #22
4Rules
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
...the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police...
Quote:
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.
That was the original intent: "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."

They are supposed to be dangerous.
4Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 18:18   #23
copo9560
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Obviouly you don agree with my opinion. I would defend your right to free speech, but you won't for me. So, I guess you defend the 2nd amendment but not the 1st.
BADOS:

While I disagree with your position, I fully agree that you should have the right to say what you want. All the Bill of Rights are important and really work together.

Only Ammendment I would want to change would be 17th but that is a different arguement.
copo9560 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 18:50   #24
MoparMan1991
Senior Member
 
MoparMan1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Barksdale AFB, LA
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.
An AR-15 or an AK-47 isn't an assault rifle until you assault something with it. Until then, it's just a firearm.
MoparMan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 19:47   #25
CharlieDelta127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.
You don't know my skill level, or others skill level. Don't put the label of "dangerous" on me, or any other responsible right minded gun owner....
CharlieDelta127 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 19:56   #26
Clutch Cargo
Amsterdam Haze
 
Clutch Cargo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,059
A commander in chief giving authority to world governments would not...do well.
__________________
GTDS
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Clutch Cargo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 20:24   #27
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 18,795


The new load from DU has arrived.
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 21:54   #28
WheelGunFan
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 98
The courts and those of us here have different meaning for "infringed"

The way Obama will do it is just like Obamacare.

1) He will use the Fed's right to tax the crap out of everything. Go after black powder and primers and tax the crap out of them doubling or more the cost of bullets

2) Next, he will simply have another tax on guns at point of sales or simply tax the crap out of accessories.

3) He can charge another tax to states using NICS, forcing states to raise fees on firearm purchases

4) Use the EPA (or try again) to regulate lead in bullets thus raising the price of bullets by making it an environmental issue. WA has already done this for hunting it will just be expanded.

None of this is considering infringing on 2a rights.

Lastly, they will make press for liberal SCOTUS appointments to "defend obortion" but it will be a back door to load the SCOTUS such that the next fight (possible Maryland) will further limit gun rights

The government has the unlimited ability to make things more difficult and more expensive and none of these will fit the legal definition of infringing our rights -- because, they have the right tax and the right to make process difficult.

Don't believe me, see what it takes to get a gun in D.C. or an out of state permit in MA.

Yes, he will not take 2a away and will not try, he will just make it more expensive
WheelGunFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 22:26   #29
WheelGunFan
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.
Even if we all agree with you and obviously we do not, here is your problem.

What do you want them to take away next? If we say, sure, take away all the AW. They say great, then guess what, then they will want something else to take away, and they will want more until we are reduced to nothing anyone will want. The Brady Campaign does not simply disband and walk away. -- see the UK for reference.

In this country we have lost all ability to compromise or be logical. The left fights with emotions and no facts so you cannot have a logical reasoned argument. If there was a way reasonable people could come together and make sure the line would move no further -- Oh, wait -- we have that, its call the Bill of Rights and Constitution. The anti-gun crowd wants one and one thing -- ban all guns. Their idea of "reasonable" is to have no guns.

BUT, the issue is you fall for the "good king" syndrom. While "THIS" guy may be a good guy, how do you know the next guy who comes along will also be good -- you don't! There is no way. Look at Mexico, they have the right to bear arms in the constitution -- but nobody can really own a gun -- because you are not even allowed to own a gun store. The people allowed the right to be taken away. Today Obama, tomorrow, the next gun grabber.

This is why we have the bill of rights because our founders knew when they were gone some day in the future, there could be someone who would try and take those rights away. Even Jefferson said that the fight must first be at the ballet box. Even the NRA says far too many gun owners do not vote.

Gun owners have to draw a line. Between Federal laws, state laws, county laws, town laws there are more than enough laws -- it stops here! If the same darn background checks and requirements are ok in my home state, why the hell is it when I go over the border to the next town, county or state all of a sudden, that FBI check is no longer valid? What changed? Did they use a different database? Nope, its how the gun grabbers contain you from carrying across the USA.

Even president Obama said that its not the AK-47s that are shooting up Chicago.

Does anyone need a full auto rifle -- no! But, the people who want it and are responsible should have one. Tell all the people at Knob Creek this past weekend why they cannot have their machine guns. Please explain to me why you cannot be trusted with an assault rifle or machine gun. You want them to take it away from you so tell me why you cannot in your admission cannot be trusted?

One more item, the police should not have these weapons either given the number of times they have shot or killed innocent people and dogs in no knock raids, they have far too much power already they don't need more. When was the last time the police have had to use full auto to clear a room. Oh, the boogymen terrorist are also a sorry excuse for all the military gear they now own. Pre 9/11 they did not have it and did not need it, now? Now, we have SWAT teams in towns in NJ with fewer than 4000 people.

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to say your opinion sucks! We, the people are the govt and we must tell our representatives enough is enough.

We showed Al Gore the door when he wanted our guns, time to show Obama the door too. In the end, the more we give govt, the more they can and will take away.
WheelGunFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 06:11   #30
cheapshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieDelta127 View Post
You don't know my skill level, or others skill level. Don't put the label of "dangerous" on me, or any other responsible right minded gun owner....
Me either. I'll respect the rights of others as long as they respect mine.
cheapshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 10:03   #31
BADOS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 225
I understand what you all are saying and respect your view and I also know my view is unpopular here in this forum. However, it's my view. But, that being said, perhaps you are right and I am wrong. Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?
BADOS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 12:15   #32
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.
The Second Amendment wasn't/isn't about hunting. Surprise right? The Second Amendment is about The People having the ability to defend themselves against a standing army in the case the government turns tyrannical. I know it's a hard truth for GRABBERS to admit to but the truth none the less. It's as necessary today, if not more so, then it was then.

You want the laws reassess? I fully agree. There is only ONE law necessary when it comes to firearms. It is illegal to commit a VIOLENT "CRIME" using a firearm.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 12:23   #33
jakebrake
cracker
 
jakebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: too close to philly
Posts: 7,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
The new load from DU has arrived.
was just thinking that.
__________________
God made man, Sam Colt made us equal, John Moses Browning made us civilized... freemasons club Number 57
jakebrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 12:23   #34
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
I understand what you all are saying and respect your view and I also know my view is unpopular here in this forum. However, it's my view. But, that being said, perhaps you are right and I am wrong. Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?
What you need to realize is that guns don't equal crime or violence. Crime and violence have always and will always be with us. You also need an education. The places with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violence including gun violence. Places with the most lenient gun control have lower crime, including violent crime rates. Don't take my word for it do some non bias research. Start by reading John Lots Jr. More Guns Less Crime. Take a look at the violent crime rates in Komyfornia and Shatcago and the like.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 10-25-2012 at 10:35..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 13:17   #35
wiscmike
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
The Second Amendment wasn't/isn't about hunting. Surprise right? The Second Amendment is about The People having the ability to defend themselves against a standing army in the case the government turns tyrannical. I know it's a hard truth for GRABBERS to admit to but the truth none the less. It's as necessary today, if not more so, then it was then.

You want the laws reassess? I fully agree. There is only ONE law necessary when it comes to firearms. It is illegal to commit a VIOLENT "CRIME" using a firearm.
As we all remember in school the 3 branches of government, these are supposed to be checks & balances. But if you control the Executive and Judicial branches you control our delicate government. One more supreme court appointment will seal the deal for years to come maybe even decades.
Obama is QUOTED as saying he feels the Constitution had deep flaws then he took an oath to uphold it, what do you believe. He keeps talking about colonialism, what gives with this guy, maybe you should watch the movie 2016 and find out. I won't comment again but he will strip the 2nd amendment in the next 4 years through the two branches. You think I made this up here is the link, in his own voice yes, it is not fake. Nothing but the facts.
wiscmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 01:20   #36
digilo
Senior Member
 
digilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: texas
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.
Ever heard of recreational shooting?

You don't need 500 hp to get to 70 mph, but the Vettes and Mustangs are available with that level of power. And that level of power in the hands of other than Race and Competition drivers is dangerous (hee).

That being said, no, I don't think Obama will do anything to expand gun control. He didn't in his first 4 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS
Maybe all we need is a better back ground check for all weapons. Some states are more stringent thans others, so perhaps a back ground check that is the same in every state. I just don't want these weapons in the hands of nuts. Does this make sense?
No it does not.

Do you get a background check every time you buy a car? Last time I looked, cars kill way more people than guns, so if we want to background check the most dangerous object, it would be cars. I just don't want those dangerous cars in the hands of nuts.

Background check does nothing for gun control. Criminals can get guns any number of ways, while all it really does is inconvenience the average good guy. I hate waiting on a BG check to see if I'm going to pass or be delayed, and nothing is more galling than having to wait on something you've just bought and is right there in front of you.

But lets background check all dangerous things, because we don't want them in the hands of nuts, now do we?

knives
cars
rope
chains
ball gags
duct tape
pepper spray
drano
oven cleaner
swimming pools
TVs

I mean, how much of a nanny state do you want? Drones overhead watching to see if an unregistered gun with a mag that holds too many bullets of illegal hollow-points might be wielded by a nut?
__________________
Taste the wares, Email.

Last edited by digilo; 10-25-2012 at 01:28..
digilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 09:32   #37
wiscmike
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 22
<>

There is a great and logical reason why he has not expanded gun control in his first and hopefully only 4 years. If he had he would be losing probably 45 out of 50 states right now.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting rights. read it. I get tired of hearing the liberals say well you don't go hunting with a pistol. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment I ask them, and they shut up.
wiscmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 09:41   #38
engineer151515
_______________
 
engineer151515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 20,526


Quote:
Originally Posted by BADOS View Post
Well, I guess it's time to speak my piece and it won't be pretty.

There will not be any change in the second amendment if Obama is re elected. That being said, if I remember correctly, the second amendment came about while muskets were fashionable. It's time to reassess the law. Our average citizens don't need assault rifles with 100 round drum magazines and you don't need an AK47 to go hunting. These weapons are dangerous in the hands of other than Military or Police. Also, for those people who think a revolutions is coming, I want what your'e drinking.
The Second Amendment was designed to protect you from a tyrannical government. You know, the people who will use the police and military against you. Or, conversely, the people you will rush to aid in the event they are overwhelmed in the defense of your liberties. Finally, it is for when police and military are unable to help you. Having been through devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and aftershocks, I can tell you on authority, that sometimes you are totally on your own against looters and gangs looking for an easy score. (I'd include riots in that category too, but I haven't lived through one of those personally)

So, if you are referring to my semi automatic AR15 (s) or my semi automatic Yugo AK47 underfolder with 30 round mags, then yes, I do need it.

BTW - assault rifles are fully automatic weapons which are restricted in access by a Tax Stamp, background check, local approvals and limited supply (registered before 1986). So, in a sense, you already have your wish.

Last edited by engineer151515; 10-25-2012 at 09:43..
engineer151515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 09:48   #39
Skeet732
NRA Life Member
 
Skeet732's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rhode island
Posts: 32
I have no patience for this convo any more, sorry, I'm just too old for it. You want my guns, come and get them. Bring some friends and some ammo.
Skeet732 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 10:41   #40
PVolk
Senior Member
 
PVolk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Southwest MI
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelGunFan View Post
Does anyone need a full auto rifle -- no! But, the people who want it and are responsible should have one. Tell all the people at Knob Creek this past weekend why they cannot have their machine guns.
Hey, I was there too! Got to shoot a full auto Glock 17 and loved all 6 seconds of it!
__________________
NRA Life Member
*19c, 23c, 24*

Last edited by PVolk; 10-25-2012 at 10:41..
PVolk is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:03.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,082
279 Members
803 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42