Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

[JayMcGee]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

Indeed so......


(now, justwhich part of the Constition were you pickin'n'choosin' from?)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The 2nd amendment refers to the citizens right and no other part supersedes it. There is no "pickin' and choosin'".

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

What is confusing you about this statement?

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

This is what you're doing.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

Actually, during that time, it was not unusual at all for private citizens on the coast to own cannons to protect their private coastlines & that law clearly included them as well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Actually, during that time, it was not unusual at all for private citizens on the coast to own cannons to protect their private coastlines & that law clearly included them as well.

Prior to 1776, cannons, privately owned by individuals, not communities or settlements, were rare as hen's teeth. They were too expensive to acquire and shoot (used a lot of powder), for most individuals to afford. Yes, they were legal, everything was legal until technology upped the ante.

As rifles and side arms improved, the people that could afford them, kept pace. It wasn't until weapons were developed for killing buildings and tanks, that private citizens didn't have a legitimate application for, that the government said whoa, Nellie. The people don't need this shit and could do a hell of a lot of bad things, even accidentally, with it. They figured it probably wasn't a good idea for you to be able to run down to the hardware store and pick up a gun that would shoot the door off a bank vault.

I'm hard pressed to come up with an occasion where I'd need anything bigger than a .5 bore. Defend myself from the government's military? When they can drop a nuke on me from half way around the world? No way.

Come to think of it, I wonder how many people with small arsenals like mine, are deluded into thinking that's all that's necessary to keep them safe from the government. That's nonsense, the ONLY thing that will protect us from the government, is an active, vigilant, voting public.
Guns only work against thugs, criminals and bullies, individually or very small groups.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Guns only work against thugs, criminals and bullies, individually or very small groups.

When used collectively, they can repel or disrupt an invading army; domestic or foreign as we have been finding out.