Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums  

Actually, when I read that, it looks like the people intended to own these rifles to defend the security of a free state are also those enrolled in that state's Militia. How many concealed weapon permits are issued to those in the Militia? How many people used those weapons to defend the state?

fla also has a castle law with makes it leagle to shoot and kill anyone on you property...it no longer states if you fear for your life or life of someone else...you now can protect material property.ie home,auto,ipod..what ever.

And Assault rifles are an entirely different class of weapon from hunting rifles.

That being said, you being a repo guy are one of the few citizens that has a legitimate reason for carrying a gun. You go onto peoples' properties and take their vehicles back for the bank, often during the middle of the night. Those people are not going to be particularly happy to see you, and quite often will offer you violence. You've got good reason to want to protect yourself. However, you should be required to be licensed to carry that firearm (and a condition of getting that license should be proof for need of carrying one).

blees them thats as it SHOULD BE nation wide.
in Ma, if i shoot an intruder even if he is trying to kill me, i the home owner would go to jail.
 

dude, they most certainly are NOT. certainly and without question they are not in the same mannar that explosive charges, wmnd, bombs, grenades, mistles or any of that other nonsense are. while they may spacifically be a different "class" like hand guns are a different class, they are still firearms and should be protected as such.
 
why should i not be able to protect my home with what ever type of FIREARM i chose? is there something wrong with that? should i not have to "up the odds" of me surviving a "gun fight" with an intruder by having a superior weapon?

Hunting most certainly serves purposes, one of which you admitted to (population control). It also puts meat in the freezer, or do you think I should be forced to buy my food? What if I can't afford it? This was actually the case with me in the year following my car accident, when I was so broke I'd have starved without deer meat and rabbits. It also generates important revenue for government (in particular, the Natural resources department, which is funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing permits).

.

and now look who's making exceptions for thier personal reasons:flip:

Now your flip floping to "its ok to carry if you have an occupational hazard".

Well, I fit the catagory as well, not many of you would go where I go all the time during the hours i do.

But, like i siad, Id rather carry a knife instead of a gun.  Our US LAW will not allow it but I think i just found a loop hole.
I can carry a "TOOL".

WOW, you guys can scavange for food up there?

Here in the states, if you can not afford food, you are not subject to the "SPORT" the Dept of Natural Resources imposes by way of taxing the sport.
You are not partiting in the season nor the sport, You are scavanging for food.

Thank god I know nothing bout the british ways, its probably a good thing.

In case you missed it earlier, I said that self defence was a poor excuse (an excuse, but a poor excuse) for carrying a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder Chicken
In case you missed it earlier, I said that self defence was a poor excuse (an excuse, but a poor excuse) for carrying a gun.
 
Nope,, I didnt miss it and you didnt see my reply to it. Its the dumbest thing ive ever whitnessed you say EVER!!! and i mean it.

Where, exactly, are arms broken down into classifications in the second amendment? Where is the word "Firearm" even used? Where does it say "guns, but no bombs"? Maybe the fathers of confederation meant you should be able to keep bowie knives or bows & arrows? By breaking "arms" down into classifications you're doing exactly what you claim to be against. In the eyes of the constitution a hand grenade is the same as a muzzle loader is the same as a pipe bomb. If government has no right to define "arms" you certainly don't.

Out one side of your mouth you're trying to broaden the definition of arms, out the other side you're trying to tighten it.

And how does keeping an AR-15 hidden in your coat qualify as protecting your house again?

Where, exactly, are arms broken down into classifications in the second amendment? Where is the word "Firearm" even used? Where does it say "guns, but no bombs"? Maybe the fathers of confederation meant you should be able to keep bowie knives or bows & arrows? By breaking "arms" down into classifications you're doing exactly what you claim to be against. In the eyes of the constitution a hand grenade is the same as a muzzle loader is the same as a pipe bomb. If government has no right to define "arms" you certainly don't.

As for Canadian criminals getting their guns from the USA, sorry, but it's a fact. The vast majority of illegal weapons come from the USA. This is because criminals know they can find the weapons there (much like much of America's weed comes from Canada, and much of its heroin comes from Afganistan, and much of its cocaine comes from Columbia) - because criminals know to go to the easiest source. And it's not just so-called "criminals". It is a common news item in Canadian papers where a law-abiding US citizen gets nailed at customs with a handgun hidden away in his Winnebago.

And it's not just so-called "criminals". It is a common news item in Canadian papers where a law-abiding US citizen gets nailed at customs with a handgun hidden away in his Winnebago.

And while on the subject of criminals: Where does it specify that you have the right to keep and bear arms as long as you've never broken the law? What if convicted felons decided to lobby Washington to broaden the second amendment so that it covers their right to own guns? What right do you have to stop them? Convicted felons are not mentioned in the second amendment, so they should not be excluded. Furthermore, elsewhere in the constitution and/or bill of rights it says that once a criminal has served his time he can no longer be persecuted. You're denying him his constitutional rights by disallowing him owning guns.

Hunting most certainly serves purposes, one of which you admitted to (population control). It also puts meat in the freezer, or do you think I should be forced to buy my food? What if I can't afford it? This was actually the case with me in the year following my car accident, when I was so broke I'd have starved without deer meat and rabbits. It also generates important revenue for government (in particular, the Natural resources department, which is funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing permits).

Cars can easily be demonstrated to have a use that benefits society. Assault weapons can and do not benefit society in any way whatsoever, unless you're a soldier (and nobody is trying to disarm soldiers). Your car comparison is still invalid. If somebody were to build a car that was made primarily to kill people you can bet your ass it would be outlawed. Until somebody makes such a car your comparison is moot. Hell, in case you didn't know, cars designed to protect the occupants (armoured vehicles) ARE illegal for civilians to own.

Sorry, but spouting the same weak rhetoric over and over is not advancing your argument. You still haven't even provided a legitimate reason for owning assault weapons, other than "the constitution doesn't say I can't". If going to the range is a legitimate reason for owning assault weapons, going to the desert is a legitimate reason for building pipe bombs.

Thank god I know nothing bout the british ways, its probably a good thing.

For example, a review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and both homicide with a gun and overall homicide rates (Killias excluded Northern Ireland from the buttstuffysis because of the level of civil unrest). In an buttstuffysis of 14 countries, the correlation between gun ownership and gun suicide was also significant, as was the correlation of gun ownership with overall suicide rates. Killias found no evidence of a compensation process whereby other means were substituted with firearms.

As a result, Canada has roughly  1 million handguns while the United States has more than  76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.

Criminologist Neil Boyd concluded that there is more evidence to support the efficacy of gun control legislation in reducing death and injury than there is for most other legislative interventions. In reviewing the evaluations of the Canadian legislation he wrote:

    "In three separate forms of statistical buttstuffysis - exploratory, time-series and structural - researchers have found evidence to suggest that gun control has had an impact on homicides and firearms homicides. The finding that an amendment to criminal law can change behaviour in the direction desired is unusual. We have had many amendments to Canadian criminal law during the past 40 years: for example changes to the penalty structure for homicide in 1961, 1967, 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1985; changes for the penalty structure affecting illegal drug use and distribution in 1961, 1969 and 1974.... In none of these cirspoogestances has it been possible to establish that a change in law can impact behaviour in the direction that the law hopes for or antites. With gun control legislation, we have some preliminary evidence - some strong suggestions - that the criminal law is working. And it is working, not by manipulating penalty levels for specific forms of crime, but by putting a regulatory system in place that can limit access to firearms, enhance the safety of firearm use, and, in a more general sense, educate the public with respect to the dangers inherent in widespread availability of these potentially lethal commodities."

Why the f**k didn't you tell us somebody was in the bathroom? Slipped your mind? Did you forget that somebody was in there with a go***mn hand cannon?

We really are all doomed when the first unmanned combat droneshiznit the battlefield.