PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     We need GUNS
       guns for everyone

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right of the people to have guns shall not be infringed...  WE THE PEOPLE

How else are we supposed to protect ourselves against our own government?  Guns help us protect ourselves from elected officials.  

Officials do not RULE OVER US.. WE RULE OVER THEM... they are elected!
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:35 PM on October 5, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, I know I'm afraid of Foley.... wait, nevermind.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:12 AM on October 6, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and others who are suspected of being.... Gay
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:19 PM on October 7, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Foley was a pedophile and a homosexual, this is not the same thign as being a homosexual...despite what FOXNews would have you beleive.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 07:17 AM on October 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or Gerry Studds (who I'm sure most of the Democrats have conveniently forgotten about while they call for the heads of all the Republicans right now).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:53 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:53 PM on October 8, 2006 :
Or Gerry Studds (who I'm sure most of the Democrats have conveniently forgotten about while they call for the heads of all the Republicans right now).


For those of you who have, as EMyers puts is, conveniently forgotten about Studds here's a refresher:

He was the first openly homosexual member of the US Congress and, more generally, the first openly gay national politician in the US. In 1983, he admitted to having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page in 1973 and was censured by the House of Representatives.

Both Studds and Republician Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds' case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. Crane was had a similar sexual relationship with a 17-year old female page in 1980.


Both Studds' and Crane's relationships were consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates. This is the key difference between Foley and Studds/Crane: the age of the minor is, apparently, under the age of consent.  (Although, from reports I've read he was 16 or 17, which is old enough in most states that I am familar with... namely, Michigan.)
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 10:25 AM on October 9, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JetSunn at 2:35 PM on October 5, 2006 :
Right of the people to have guns shall not be infringed...  WE THE PEOPLE

How else are we supposed to protect ourselves against our own government?  Guns help us protect ourselves from elected officials.  

Officials do not RULE OVER US.. WE RULE OVER THEM... they are elected!


Oh, I would like to see you shoot down a F-22 raptor with your gun. How are you going to stop a line of M1- Abhrams battle tanks with your hunting rifle? How exactly do you defend against a ICBM attack or artillery strike with a gun? Where in the constitution did it even mention the word GUN? The 2nd amendment is about the right to BEAR ARMS.

If you want to interpret the 2nd amendment in such a way that every private citizen is armed to defend against foreign and domestic military forces. Then WE THE PEOPLE are allowed to possess any form of ARMS that's available to any POTENTIAL foe. That ranges from tanks, aircraft, ships, artillery pieces to nuclear weapons.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:03 PM on December 5, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 5:03 PM on December 5, 2006 :
Quote from JetSunn at 2:35 PM on October 5, 2006 :
Right of the people to have guns shall not be infringed...  WE THE PEOPLE

How else are we supposed to protect ourselves against our own government?  Guns help us protect ourselves from elected officials.  

Officials do not RULE OVER US.. WE RULE OVER THEM... they are elected!


Oh, I would like to see you shoot down a F-22 raptor with your gun. How are you going to stop a line of M1- Abhrams battle tanks with your hunting rifle? How exactly do you defend against a ICBM attack or artillery strike with a gun? Where in the constitution did it even mention the word GUN? The 2nd amendment is about the right to BEAR ARMS.


You don't have to, just get the pilot before he gets to his plane, or you get the corrupt tyrants that are in power. Remember these patriots are interwoven in our communitys, to use any of the arms you have mentioned you would kill a majority of the community with  them and would turn the rest of the country agains you.  

If you want to interpret the 2nd amendment in such a way that every private citizen is armed to defend against foreign and domestic military forces. Then WE THE PEOPLE are allowed to possess any form of ARMS that's available to any POTENTIAL foe. That ranges from tanks, aircraft, ships, artillery pieces to nuclear weapons.


You can own quite a few of the things you have mentioned already. Except icbm's and nukes..And if your look at Switzerland that is exactly what is done.







-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 09:52 AM on December 9, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't have to, just get the pilot before he gets to his plane, or you get the corrupt tyrants that are in power. Remember these patriots are interwoven in our communitys, to use any of the arms you have mentioned you would kill a majority of the community with  them and would turn the rest of the country agains you.  


If that is the case, why not just ban guns and when war comes up, we can just go ahead and intercept the troops with knives and bats before they get to the armory? What happens if a foreign force invades? You are going to sneak into their country and shoot down every single pilot before they get into their planes without getting caught? If this is a viable option, why do we allow our government to spend so much money buying SAMs and other anti-aircraft weapons?

Secondly, a gun can also be used to kill innocents as a tank or an ICBM can. IRRESPONSIBLE use of weapons can kill innocents, but just because they can doesn't mean I will use them IRRESPONSIBLY.


You can own quite a few of the things you have mentioned already. Except icbm's and nukes..And if your look at Switzerland that is exactly what is done.


Actually it is much more complicated than that. The companies that provide armaments to the military are NOT ALLOWED to provide the same armaments to citizens. It is in effect a ban. Are you satisfied if the government does not ban guns, but restricts ALL gun manufacturers to sell to the military only?

(Edited by quatin 12/11/2006 at 5:33 PM).

(Edited by quatin 12/11/2006 at 5:33 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:32 PM on December 11, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 5:32 PM on December 11, 2006 :


If that is the case, why not just ban guns and when war comes up, we can just go ahead and intercept the troops with knives and bats before they get to the armory? What happens if a foreign force invades? You are going to sneak into their country and shoot down every single pilot before they get into their planes without getting caught? If this is a viable option, why do we allow our government to spend so much money buying SAMs and other anti-aircraft weapons?


I am figuring that you have missunderstood what I ment. I am for the private ownership of arms in cluding cannon, tanks, machineguns, etc.  The public to secure their freedom would only need their guns. The other arms would not be nessary since, #1. no country with a clear head would invade the US, just as they would not invade Switzerland. #2. Our military would not cooperate with the goverment in a civil uprising on our goverment, at least not at this time. Unfortunatly we have no way of predicting what would occur in the future  

Secondly, a gun can also be used to kill innocents as a tank or an ICBM can. IRRESPONSIBLE use of weapons can kill innocents, but just because they can doesn't mean I will use them IRRESPONSIBLY.

As with the great majority of legal gun owners would to.


You can own quite a few of the things you have mentioned already. Except icbm's and nukes..And if your look at Switzerland that is exactly what is done.


Actually it is much more complicated than that. The companies that provide armaments to the military are NOT ALLOWED to provide the same armaments to citizens. It is in effect a ban. Are you satisfied if the government does not ban guns, but restricts ALL gun manufacturers to sell to the military only?

First I was not referring to state of the art armaments such as the armaments that our military uses today, but surplus equipment demilled tanks,  cannons, etc. (which ,with the right paperwork, can be rewated or reactivated.) Though some of that surplus can be just one or two generations away from what our  military uses today.
(Edited by quatin 12/11/2006 at 5:33 PM).

(Edited by quatin 12/11/2006 at 5:33 PM).






-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 9:11 PM on December 20, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The other arms would not be nessary since, #1. no country with a clear head would invade the US, just as they would not invade Switzerland. #2. Our military would not cooperate with the goverment in a civil uprising on our goverment, at least not at this time. Unfortunatly we have no way of predicting what would occur in the future  


This is exactly what I meant. It's hypocritical to adopt weapons control based on the exact same premises as gun control. Just because in your view there is a "slight chance" or you believe that the military will not harm the civilian population, doesn't mean everyone else should believe it as well. Now you may not advocate for the ban, but are we in agreement that it is hypocrisy to expect others to not prepare for a military invasion just because "it probably won't happen"?



First I was not referring to state of the art armaments such as the armaments that our military uses today, but surplus equipment demilled tanks,  cannons, etc. (which ,with the right paperwork, can be rewated or reactivated.) Though some of that surplus can be just one or two generations away from what our  military uses today.


Ok, well I was referring to state of the art weapons. Are you satisfied if the government only allowed muskets and black powder revolvers that's been sitting in surplus and outdated? What's the point of arming, if one cannot arm to equal potential of the foe?


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:30 AM on December 21, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's the point of arming, if one cannot arm to equal potential of the foe?



By that line of reasoning we shoul allow our citizens to own nuclear warheads.  :P


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:01 AM on December 21, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


By that line of reasoning we shoul allow our citizens to own nuclear warheads.  :P


Welcome to the discussion EMyers. That topic was discussed in my original post.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:41 AM on December 21, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, so you did realize how silly it sounded.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:56 PM on December 21, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 12:30 AM on December 21, 2006 :

This is exactly what I meant. It's hypocritical to adopt weapons control based on the exact same premises as gun control. Just because in your view there is a "slight chance" or you believe that the military will not harm the civilian population, doesn't mean everyone else should believe it as well.


I don't think you understand my position on this, I will try to elaborate.
I beleave that there is a danger to our individual  freedom to have an army stationed among us over which we have no control. A few years ago our military was polled and was asked , If you were ordered to turn your guns on the American public would you? 75% said no, and would resign their comission. But 25% would. Do you trust our goverment? I don't.

Now you may not advocate for the ban, but are we in agreement that it is hypocrisy to expect others to not prepare for a military invasion just because "it probably won't happen"?


As the US stands today no nation would even entertain the thought of invading our country. It is one thing to fight a military, but it is something else to fight a nation. I'll use the US numbers as an example. To defeat an army of 2 million would be difficult and costly but not impossable. On the other hand to fight a military of 2 million and an armed public of 80 to 100 million with the potential of that armed public to tripple in numbers is nothing less than suicide. The armed public of the United States is a bigger deterent to invasion than our military could ever be.

Ok, well I was referring to state of the art weapons. Are you satisfied if the government only allowed muskets and black powder revolvers that's been sitting in surplus and outdated? What's the point of arming, if one cannot arm to equal potential of the foe?


I beleave that the American public should be able to possess any weapon that they choose to, except for state of the art arms. To let the public have access to state of the art arms would put our national security in jepordy. State of the art arms in the hands of civilians would give them access to technological secrets that could (or should I say) would fall in to the wrong hands. I think that you can agree that the danger to our national security makes this an unacceptable risk. This would not include small arms like light and heavy machineguns etc. I think though that these weapons should be registered and require a extensive back ground chk to be possesed by the public.    





(Edited by TRIGGER 12/22/2006 at 10:57 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 12/22/2006 at 10:58 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 12/22/2006 at 11:17 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 10:54 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JetSunn at 2:35 PM on October 5, 2006 :
Officials do not RULE OVER US.. WE RULE OVER THEM... they are elected!


A well known communist dictator once said "Public officals are not elected by those who vote, They are elected by those who count the vote" Joseph Stalin  




(Edited by TRIGGER 12/22/2006 at 11:14 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 11:13 PM on December 22, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As the US stands today no nation would even entertain the thought of invading our country. It is one thing to fight a military, but it is something else to fight a nation. I'll use the US numbers as an example. To defeat an army of 2 million would be difficult and costly but not impossable. On the other hand to fight a military of 2 million and an armed public of 80 to 100 million with the potential of that armed public to tripple in numbers is nothing less than suicide. The armed public of the United States is a bigger deterent to invasion than our military could ever be.


This may be true, but it does not prove an impossibility. Again, just because you think it unreasonable does not make it an impossibility. The spirit of the 2nd amendment was for the population to arm against both domestic and foreign ARMIES. The public then could possess state of the art weapons. If you think this is no longer a reasonable goal then we should re-write the constitution to reflect otherwise.  Iraq has looser gun control laws than the US almost every household has an ak-47, yet we did not see millions of civilians who are obviously resentful of the US, rise up and fight against our tanks and jets.


I beleave that the American public should be able to possess any weapon that they choose to, except for state of the art arms. To let the public have access to state of the art arms would put our national security in jepordy. State of the art arms in the hands of civilians would give them access to technological secrets that could (or should I say) would fall in to the wrong hands. I think that you can agree that the danger to our national security makes this an unacceptable risk. This would not include small arms like light and heavy machineguns etc. I think though that these weapons should be registered and require a extensive back ground chk to be possesed by the public.    


This is in parallel with the anti-gun stream of thought. If the public is allowed guns, wouldn't it fall into the wrong hands? Having guns then would push an "unacceptable risk" to the communities. This is belittling the responsibility and competence of "weapons-owners". Also, why would you ask for registration for machine guns, but not guns in general?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 1:01 PM on December 23, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 1:01 PM on December 23, 2006 :


This may be true, but it does not prove an impossibility. Again, just because you think it unreasonable does not make it an impossibility. The spirit of the 2nd amendment was for the population to arm against both domestic and foreign ARMIES. The public then could possess state of the art weapons. If you think this is no longer a reasonable goal then we should re-write the constitution to reflect otherwise.  Iraq has looser gun control laws than the US almost every household has an ak-47, yet we did not see millions of civilians who are obviously resentful of the US, rise up and fight against our tanks and jets.


The Iraqi public didn't rise up because we fought to unseat their murderous dictator. They were not really resentful of the US since we rid them of their tyrant. You may not beleave this but if you know some of the military members of ours who are over there and you talk to them they will tell you that the people are greatful for what the US has done only a small minority actualy resents us. The majority of the public want us there only untill they can handle it then they want us to leave.

This is in parallel with the anti-gun stream of thought. If the public is allowed guns, wouldn't it fall into the wrong hands? Having guns then would push an "unacceptable risk" to the communities. This is belittling the responsibility and competence of "weapons-owners". Also, why would you ask for registration for machine guns, but not guns in general?


When I was talking about state of the art weapons and systems the wrong hands, I am talking about are enemys and nations that would use our weapons technoligy for invading other nations and hold our planet hostage. Imagine if the islamic extreamists were to get the technoligy to make nukes or a nation like Iran were to get ICBM or MERV technology which would allow them to hit us. Or China were to get our stelth, jet engine, and laser technoligy and be able to stand toe to toe with us.

I am not asking for registration but the continuation of what is required for MGNs and DDs ownership to continue as it is. With the repeal of the 84 fully transferrable registration ban and the repeal of the 68 import ban. The National firearms act of 1934 has done a good job keeping machine guns away from common criminals.




(Edited by TRIGGER 12/23/2006 at 7:46 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 7:46 PM on December 23, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The Iraqi public didn't rise up because we fought to unseat their murderous dictator. They were not really resentful of the US since we rid them of their tyrant. You may not beleave this but if you know some of the military members of ours who are over there and you talk to them they will tell you that the people are greatful for what the US has done only a small minority actualy resents us. The majority of the public want us there only untill they can handle it then they want us to leave.


I entirely disagree. The Iraqi public absolutely abhor us. This is the same mask of self-gratification that we did for vietnam, korea, phillipines and kuwait. The public may be glad Hussein is gone, but they do not buy our "we're doing it for your own good". More people are dying daily than there was when Hussein was in power. We haphazardly removed an unstable government only to release the chaos of a civil war. We established total immunity for our troops there so they can't be trialed for breaking laws. We established an obviously biased government where people refused to even vote. We do no-knock night raids on private residences. We confiscate weapons. We are allowed to imprison "suspected insurgents" and do not have to give due process. We have leveled cities to fight "insurgents" and do not compensate for private loses. If you ever talked to an Iraqi, either here or the US (I have), you will find absolute disgust of the US actions in Iraq.



When I was talking about state of the art weapons and systems the wrong hands, I am talking about are enemys and nations that would use our weapons technoligy for invading other nations and hold our planet hostage. Imagine if the islamic extreamists were to get the technoligy to make nukes or a nation like Iran were to get ICBM or MERV technology which would allow them to hit us. Or China were to get our stelth, jet engine, and laser technoligy and be able to stand toe to toe with us.

I am not asking for registration but the continuation of what is required for MGNs and DDs ownership to continue as it is. With the repeal of the 84 fully transferrable registration ban and the repeal of the 68 import ban. The National firearms act of 1934 has done a good job keeping machine guns away from common criminals.


Fine, that is an acceptable goal to keep secrets away from foreign combatants. However, it is also an acceptable goal to keep weapons from criminals. You can use a gun offensively or defensively, just like you can use a nuke offensively or defensively (Mutual Destruction Theory). Do you see the correlation here that antis in fear of criminal with guns want the ban on all guns and in fear of other "enemy" nations possessing "hi-tech offensive weapons" you want to ban all these weapons.


I am not asking for registration but the continuation of what is required for MGNs and DDs ownership to continue as it is. With the repeal of the 84 fully transferrable registration ban and the repeal of the 68 import ban. The National firearms act of 1934 has done a good job keeping machine guns away from common criminals.



If registration of class II weapons prevents criminals from getting MGs, then wouldn't registration of all firearms prevent criminals from getting any firearm?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:52 PM on December 24, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I entirely disagree. The Iraqi public absolutely abhor us. This is the same mask of self-gratification that we did for vietnam, korea, phillipines and kuwait. The public may be glad Hussein is gone, but they do not buy our "we're doing it for your own good". More people are dying daily than there was when Hussein was in power. We haphazardly removed an unstable government only to release the chaos of a civil war. We established total immunity for our troops there so they can't be trialed for breaking laws. We established an obviously biased government where people refused to even vote. We do no-knock night raids on private residences. We confiscate weapons. We are allowed to imprison "suspected insurgents" and do not have to give due process. We have leveled cities to fight "insurgents" and do not compensate for private loses. If you ever talked to an Iraqi, either here or the US (I have), you will find absolute disgust of the US actions in Iraq.


I won't debate this here. If you want to read the posts on these threads and I'll debate you but not on gun control threads.

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/politics-government/11966-americas-war-terror.html?highlight=iraq

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=253

Fine, that is an acceptable goal to keep secrets away from foreign combatants. However, it is also an acceptable goal to keep weapons from criminals.


Yes, I don't agree with all NFA laws. I do how ever beleave that we do need a system for NFA preferably like Switzerlands.  

You can use a gun offensively or defensively, just like you can use a nuke offensively or defensively (Mutual Destruction Theory).


This is where we think differently I prefer that law abiding citizens to have the advantage not the criminal. Where the criminal takes the chance of elimination.  Just as if any country should have the technological edge it would be the US.  


Do you see the correlation here that antis in fear of criminal with guns want the ban on all guns and in fear of other "enemy" nations possessing "hi-tech offensive weapons" you want to ban all these weapons.
 

This is not my belief at all. I don't believe that the anti's are afraid of criminals with guns since they are the same people that will turn criminals back out on the street. I think that they just fear us with guns, since an unarmed citizen can be controled with ease. I don't want to ban any weapons just if anyone is to have them it should be the US.  

(Edited by TRIGGER 12/28/2006 at 8:31 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 12/29/2006 at 11:07 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 12/29/2006 at 11:08 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 10:34 PM on December 26, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


This is where we think differently I prefer that law abiding citizens to have the advantage not the criminal. Where the criminal takes the chance of elimination.  Just as if any country should have the technological edge it would be the US.  


This is counter intuitive to the pro-gun stance. If the criminal really wants to, they'll get it anyways. Look at N.Korea, they wanted the nuke and got it. All the bans and laws prevented nothing. So why ban it for everyone?


I don't want to ban any weapons just if anyone is to have them it should be the US.  


So are we concluding that all ARMS be it nukes, tanks, mines, should be allowed and that's what the constitution states?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:57 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here, here!  Let's make everything legal so there are no criminals.  If criminals want to rape, they will still rape despite the laws.  Let's make legal for everyone.  Why should criminals be the only ones enjoying themselves?  Brilliant!


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 06:51 AM on January 9, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's cynical. The law punishes you for the act of rape not for having genitals. Just because you have the tool doesn't mean you will be malicious about it.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:50 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from quatin at 5:03 PM on December 5, 2006 :
Quote from JetSunn at 2:35 PM on October 5, 2006 :
Right of the people to have guns shall not be infringed...  WE THE PEOPLE

How else are we supposed to protect ourselves against our own government?  Guns help us protect ourselves from elected officials.  

Officials do not RULE OVER US.. WE RULE OVER THEM... they are elected!


Oh, I would like to see you shoot down a F-22 raptor with your gun. How are you going to stop a line of M1- Abhrams battle tanks with your hunting rifle? How exactly do you defend against a ICBM attack or artillery strike with a gun? Where in the constitution did it even mention the word GUN? The 2nd amendment is about the right to BEAR ARMS.

If you want to interpret the 2nd amendment in such a way that every private citizen is armed to defend against foreign and domestic military forces. Then WE THE PEOPLE are allowed to possess any form of ARMS that's available to any POTENTIAL foe. That ranges from tanks, aircraft, ships, artillery pieces to nuclear weapons.




I think that we can assume that it means that we can have something that is viable in an emergency.

The F-22 poses no threat to the populace because it can only shoot down other airplanes. In the case of the M1 Abrams, if you have read my other posts you'd know my position, I believe that if the government can have it I should be allowed to have it too.

What make you think that we can trust the government more than a civilian? I mean, in Coatesville the government made 300 families leave their homes so that they could put a car dealership there. their excuse was that they would get more tax revenues from the dealership than from the residence. that was an aria where I believe the people had a right to defend themselves with any means available. Just because it is a government does not mean that they are special and can tell people were they can and can not live.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:12 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The F-22 poses no threat to the populace because it can only shoot down other airplanes.


Ummm...I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.The F-22 has a documented setup for air-ground attacks which include 2 sidewinder missiles, 2 450lb JDAM bombs and it can be outfitted with 4 external bays to hold up to 5,000lbs of various armaments for short range missions.

http://www.f22fighter.com/weapons.htm
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:29 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A sidewinder missile is exclusively air to air. Here are the specs for the F-22 in regards to weapons carried, four AIM-120 AMRAAMs Radar guided air to air missiles, four AIM-9 Sidewinders, and a M61A1 Vulcan rotary 20mm cannon with 500 rounds. It has no external stores because that would compromise stealth.

(Edited by SilverStar 1/10/2007 at 3:26 PM).


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 3:16 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, you are not reading all of the website. It lists 3 DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS of the F-22 :


Air-to-air configuration; 2 AIM-9 [Sidewinder] missiles in the side bays + 6 AIM 120C [AMRAAM] missiles. (or 4 of the older AIM 120A [AMRAAM] missiles, which have longer fins)

Air-to-ground configuration; 2 AIM-9 [Sidewinder] missiles in the side bays + 2 AIM 120C [AMRAAM] missiles + 2 GBU-32 JDAM 450 pounds bombs. (or 2 GBU-30 JDAM 1000 pound bombs and no AMRAAM missiles)
External combat configuration; 2 fueltanks + 4 missiles.


Ferry configuration; 4 external fuel tanks + 8 missiles.


It says right there that the F-22 carries JDAM bombs. You don't use those to shoot down airplanes. I never said sidewinders were air to ground, just that it's included in the AIR TO GROUND CONFIGURATION.

Also on the website it quotes:


In addition to the F-22's internal weapons bays, it will also be capable of carrying stores externally. Four underwing stations will be able to support up to 5,000 pounds. Underwing stores will be fitted to the F-22 when stealth is not critical. External drop tanks up to 600 US gallons can also be fitted onto the stations. This will increase the F-22's endurance and range significantly.


The F-22 HAS EXTERNAL WEAPONS STORAGE AREAs.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:35 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting. I still do not know what this has to do with gun control. I still think that I need one. The F/A-18 is far more devastating in the air to ground combat than the F-22. The F-22 just has stealth added.



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:30 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Interesting. I still do not know what this has to do with gun control. I still think that I need one. The F/A-18 is far more devastating in the air to ground combat than the F-22. The F-22 just has stealth added.


The relation to gun control is that you can't reasonably defend against a F-22 with a rifle. So the 2nd Amendment is archaic, because people no longer fight for legalization of all ARMS for the purpose of defending against an organized military force.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:01 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No it just means that the common man should be allowed to have a F-22, if he can pay 50 million dollars.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:11 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


No it just means that the common man should be allowed to have a F-22, if he can pay 50 million dollars.


"No" what? I don't think you're reading my posts at all. That's the entire point of the whole topic I introduced.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:42 AM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, the 2nd Amendment is not archaic, if that were so than so would the first amendment. You can't say that one amendment is out dated just because you don't like it. Ether there are defined laws or there aren't.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:10 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are not reading my posts at all. You have completely deviated from the point of discussion that I'm unsure how you are arriving at these conclusions. I'm just going to suggest re-reading those posts so I don't spam the board with repeats.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:18 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can't have a double standard when it comes to a document. But to get back to our direct line of discussion, the government is comprised of people just like you and me, what makes them so super natural as to think that they are more trust worthy than the typical American?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:14 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.