PDA

View Full Version : PA Gov. Rendell Wants Tough Gun Laws in Response to Cop Killings


BrandonCarr39
04-15-2009, 11:46 PM
HARRISBURG — Flanked by police officers and mayors, Gov. Ed Rendell today called on Congress to enact a federal assault weapons ban and for the state Legislature to revisit gun control measures that failed to win support in 2007.

In response to the fatal shooting of three Pittsburgh police officers on April 4, Rendell said it's time to reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Richard Poplawski, 22, armed with an AK-47 and two other guns, is accused of killing officers Eric Kelly, 41, Stephen Mayhle, 29, and Paul Sciullo II, 36. "These weapons have absolutely no purpose except to kill. They can't be used for sport. They can't be used for hunting," Rendell said.

Rendell later acknowledged "this might not be the right time" when asked about a Newsweek report that President Barack Obama's domestic agenda is more focused on the economy and health care. Rendell said U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.., is prepared to move forward with a ban."She'll choose the right time," he said.

At the state level, Rendell called on lawmakers to enact legislation allowing municipalities to enact their own gun control laws. That would enable cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, York, and Reading, to fashion their own legislation, he said. Rendell also asked state lawmakers to approve legislation requiring lost and stolen handguns to be reported.

"Enough is enough," said Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. "We have to protect our police officers, our city and our state."

"We're here today unified and united to support these efforts," Ravehstahl said.

"I hope no other chief has to live through what I lived through that day," said Pittsburgh police Chief Nate Harper.

"How much blood has to be spilled in the streets of America?" Harper said.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_620779.html

tony hipchest
04-16-2009, 12:01 AM
but shooting guns is a sport. :huh:

while i own guns (2) my "sport" of choice is bowling.

i own 134 bowling balls. infact... i consider myself as an avid bowling ball "collector".

:sofunny:

dis anyone know you can also kill someone with a bowling ball?

BAN BOWLING BALLS!!!!

*this post was brought to you by "tongue in cheek"*

steelwall
04-16-2009, 12:19 AM
I used to deer hunt with an SKS which is considered an assult weapon..... The notion they can't be used for sport is crazy. What this rifle won't kill an animal, only humans?

Edit: Then maybe we should ban hunting, and while we're at it fishing too..... lets just ban everything untill each person as a government official strapped on their backs to make sure no laws are being violated.....

tony hipchest
04-16-2009, 12:25 AM
I used to deer hunt with an SKS which is considered an assult weapon..... The notion they can't be used for sport is crazy. What this rifle won't kill an animal, only humans?

.....
i agree but will also say part of the "sport" of hunting is NOT putting 35 holes in your game. :noidea: if one needs an assault rifle to succsesfully "hunt", they probably suck and should consider a new hobby.

personally, i will kill anything with a 35 year old 30-30 rifle.... one shot or 2.... no scope.

oh, and anyone ever been murdered with a fish hook? why suggest banning fishing? Jesus fished. :noidea: (not with dynamite though)

MACH1
04-16-2009, 12:37 AM
but shooting guns is a sport. :huh:


Ever do any skeet or trap shooting. :wink02:

PULL

steelwall
04-16-2009, 12:39 AM
i agree but will also say part of the "sport" of hunting is NOT putting 35 holes in your game. :noidea: if one needs an assault rifle to succsesfully "hunt", they probably suck and should consider a new hobby.

personally, i will kill anything with a 35 year old 30-30 rifle.... one shot or 2.... no scope.

oh, and anyone ever been murdered with a fish hook? why suggest banning fishing? Jesus fished. :noidea: (not with dynamite though)

Because fishing hurts the wittle fishes..... come on you know what I'm getting at.

I also have a 30-30... well had one at the time, but I prefered the comfort, handleing, accuracy and the range the SKS provided. While I did have a 40 round clip I used the stantard issue 10 round mag when hunting.....and for the record I only ever killed 2 deer and 1 was one shot and the 2nd, 2 but both shots hit. so.....:flap:

I did alot of hunting in the woods,but would move from time to time to the edges of feilds, so a shotgun just wouldnt give the range. I seen the SKS as sort of a combination. Easy and fast sighting, with pretty good range.

tony hipchest
04-16-2009, 12:47 AM
Ever do any skeet or trap shooting. :wink02:

PULL

*this post was brought to you by "tongue in cheek"*


actually i havent, but would love to try. ive wasted lizards and bunnies with a 12 guage though.

the 1st time i ever got drunk in the 4th grade (my 1st whole beer) we were poaching bunnies in the back of a pick up with a spotlight and wasting cotton tails. (best friends moms BF was pretty cool).

we got a kangaroo rat too! :thumbsup: (i didnt hit shit but it was my 1st time shootin a shotgun and drinking a beer. good times!

oh, to be 9 again.

wow. maybe i am fukked up. :laughing:

steelwall
04-16-2009, 12:51 AM
actually i havent, but would love to try. ive wasted lizards and bunnies with a 12 guage though.

the 1st time i ever got drunk in the 4th grade (my 1st whole beer) we were poaching bunnies in the back of a pick up with a spotlight and wasting cotton tails. (best friends moms BF was pretty cool).

we got a kangaroo rat too! :thumbsup: (i didnt hit shit but it was my 1st time shootin a shotgun and drinking a beer. good times!

oh, to be 9 again.

wow. maybe i am fukked up. :laughing:

Ok lets look at this. Now depending on the shot. You could potentially be fireing up to 30 individual pellets at a target per shell....... So it toke you 30 shots to hit a lizard??? Thats it... lets ban shotguns too!!!:chuckle:

MACH1
04-16-2009, 12:53 AM
30-30, thats a pea shooter. :chuckle:

I started deer hunting with a .32 Special (30-30 on roids) Then I graduated to a 7MM Weatherby Mag. Nothing like reaching out 5-6 hundred yards if needed.

Oh yeah, I'm a firm believer of the one shot, one kill rule.

Back on topic, One of my friends uses an old Russian Mosin-Nagent rifle which shoots 7.62 X 54, the same round as a AK. It works fine for hunting, other than its a heavy sob.

MACH1
04-16-2009, 12:56 AM
actually i havent, but would love to try. ive wasted lizards and bunnies with a 12 guage though.

the 1st time i ever got drunk in the 4th grade (my 1st whole beer) we were poaching bunnies in the back of a pick up with a spotlight and wasting cotton tails. (best friends moms BF was pretty cool).

we got a kangaroo rat too! :thumbsup: (i didnt hit shit but it was my 1st time shootin a shotgun and drinking a beer. good times!

oh, to be 9 again.

wow. maybe i am fukked up. :laughing:

You should try it sometime, its kinda fun. I got a 10 Ga. I'll let you use. :laughing:

steelwall
04-16-2009, 01:02 AM
Back on topic, One of my friends uses an old Russian Mosin-Nagent rifle which shoots 7.62 X 54, the same round as a AK. It works fine for hunting, other than its a heavy sob.

Yeah I know the gun, it is one big, heavy joker, I wouldnt want to lug that thing around through the woods all day. Like walking around in there with an 8 foot peice of landscaping timber...:chuckle:

MACH1
04-16-2009, 01:13 AM
Yeah I know the gun, it is one big, heavy joker, I wouldnt want to lug that thing around through the woods all day. Like walking around in there with an 8 foot peice of landscaping timber...:chuckle:

Yep..That's exactly what its like. And last we went hunting he still hadn't put a sling on it yet. All I know is I wouldn't pack that thing around all day. :laughing:

steelwall
04-16-2009, 01:25 AM
Yep..That's exactly what its like. And last we went hunting he still hadn't put a sling on it yet. All I know is I wouldn't pack that thing around all day. :laughing:

No doubt :laughing:

tony hipchest
04-16-2009, 01:30 AM
, but I prefered the comfort, handleing, accuracy and the range the SKS provided. .i can appreciate that. my gat has a standard issue 100 rd clip (dont think they make them with any other) and i had to have my mom write a permission slip for me to buy it when i turned 18 because it is classified as a pistol ( and a military style assault weapon).

i was gonna get a glock (this was back when wal-mart sold glocks) but the new desert eagle was much more appealing and a bucket car and my calico was a much more sound investment.:noidea:

still want a desert eagle, plus a .357 S&W with the wooden grip (that shoots out 2 foot flames when youre firing at night).

i would love an uzi, but would settle for a tec-9. hell, i would be happy with a simple ar-15.

the sad thing is i now have the money and ability to have them all and i guess have outgrown the desire. :doh:

steelwall
04-16-2009, 01:42 AM
i can appreciate that. my gat has a standard issue 100 rd clip (dont think they make them with any other) and i had to have my mom write a permission slip for me to buy it when i turned 18 because it is classified as a pistol ( and a military style assault weapon).

i was gonna get a glock (this was back when wal-mart sold glocks) but the new desert eagle was much more appealing and a bucket car and my calico was a much more sound investment.:noidea:

still want a desert eagle, plus a .357 S&W with the wooden grip (that shoots out 2 foot flames when youre firing at night).

i would love an uzi, but would settle for a tec-9. hell, i would be happy with a simple ar-15.

the sad thing is i now have the money and ability to have them all and i guess have outgrown the desire. :doh:


Yeah I used to love the guns, not so much anymore. I'll still have my basic stuff in my dads safe back home, but got rid of most of the goodies I had. Before coming to China.

When I get back though I want to buy that pistol, I can never remember the damn name but it's a revolver you can shot 45. cal or 410 shells with it.

HometownGal
04-16-2009, 08:12 AM
I am a gun owner and have always been a pro-gun kinda woman, but I firmly believe that assault weapons, like the AK47 used to slaughter our 3 police officers a few weeks back, should definitely not be made available and sold to civilians (though there are other ways people could obtain them, i.e. black market. etc.).

Dino 6 Rings
04-16-2009, 12:27 PM
So the argument is...some nut job in PA goes nuts, and kills 3 cops after fighting with his own mother over a dog pissing on the floor and some neighbor is quoted as saying "he was worried about the government taking away his guns so he snapped" so common sense says...the government should impose rules to take away guns? Doesn't that mean its more likely for more nut jobs to snap in retaliation?

revefsreleets
04-16-2009, 01:24 PM
If the governemnet takes away guns from Americans, they'll just kill each other with bows and arrows or pipe bombs or something. This is a stupid "solution" to a much deeper problem...

Indo
04-16-2009, 01:48 PM
It (banning these guns) is an unrealistic "solution" to the problem...
If you ban the guns so that they cannot be obtained legally, the nut-cases will just obtain them illegally. But we will all feel better because instead of 100 people having these types of weapons only 5 or 6 nut-cases will have obtained them illegally. The media will report how much better we are doing by removing most of these weapons from the streets and everyone will feel good about themselves.

But it doesn't matter because it was only the 5 or 6 nut-cases we had to worry about in the first place. AND THEY STILL HAVE THE GUNS!

The ONLY way to stop a problem like this is to make the punishment for it MUCH more severe. I'm not quite sure how you do that in such a politically correct country such as ours...too damn many tree-huggers...
remember the kid who spray-painted graffiti on a building in Indonesia? Have yuo ever wondered why there is no graffiti in Indonesia? Because when you deface property in Indonesia they SMACK YOU WITH A CANE UNTIL YOU LOSE CONSCIOUSNESS FROM THE PAIN. I'm guessing you won't spray-paint things again...
Severe. But it works.

steelreserve
04-16-2009, 02:09 PM
This is garbage. Hunting is not the only "sport" or recreation you can do with a gun. What about shooting the shit out of a bunch of cans and trees and junk?

Or plain old self-defense? Ever think of that? You can defend yourself pretty well with an assault weapon, even against a heavily armed opponent. Ironically, the guy in Pittsburgh demonstrated exactly that, although obviously the cops are not the ones you're supposed to be defending against.

KeiselPower99
04-16-2009, 09:38 PM
How about instead of new laws they just enforce the onces they have anyway.

Polamalu Princess
04-16-2009, 09:56 PM
I have had guns for a long time. I have one on me 24/7. I have a 9 year old daughter that knows what my guns can do. She respects my right to own guns and understands why her grandfathers fought in WWII and how they taught me to defend my RIGHTS. If guns are taken away from the people that have the right and are responsible and follow the RULES, the only people that will have guns are the people that get them on the black market and unlawful ways. Do not take my guns.

tony hipchest
04-16-2009, 10:13 PM
I have had guns for a long time. I have one on me 24/7. I Do not take my guns. if you dont mind me asking, how many of them are assult weapons?

Polamalu Princess
04-16-2009, 10:36 PM
if you dont mind me asking, how many of them are assult weapons?

38 and a 9 mm

No - to your question.:hug: Why the question?

tony hipchest
04-16-2009, 10:42 PM
38 and a 9 mm

No - to your question.:hug: Why the question?
just because you said "dont take my guns away". nobody is proposing that. your pistols are safe.

Gov. Ed Rendell today called on Congress to enact a federal assault weapons ban.

it appears he seems to think that 22 year old psychopaths shouldnt be able to obtain ak-47's so easilly.

Polamalu Princess
04-16-2009, 10:52 PM
:hug:Tony, I am not going to engage the “gun” subject here, as there are so many other things going on the SFF that I do Not want to be a part of and this is one that I just wanted to state my case for having my guns.:hug:

cubanstogie
04-16-2009, 11:24 PM
I have had guns for a long time. I have one on me 24/7. I have a 9 year old daughter that knows what my guns can do. She respects my right to own guns and understands why her grandfathers fought in WWII and how they taught me to defend my RIGHTS. If guns are taken away from the people that have the right and are responsible and follow the RULES, the only people that will have guns are the people that get them on the black market and unlawful ways. Do not take my guns.

I have a five year old daughter and am hesitant to have a gun in the house. I have always thought there is a greater chance of an accident with her and her friends or cousins than me using it on a burglar. Lately I am starting to second guess my decision and am seriously ready to get a pistol.

tony hipchest
04-16-2009, 11:40 PM
I have a five year old daughter and am hesitant to have a gun in the house. I have always thought there is a greater chance of an accident with her and her friends or cousins than me using it on a burglar. Lately I am starting to second guess my decision and am seriously ready to get a pistol.same here. as a gun lover, that is the delimma i am faced with. but i did take my 5 1/2 old out to the range a month or so ago just to watch and she didnt seem scared. i may see if she wants a bb gun around 8-9 and then go from there.

my guns are kept elsewhere. i have a bat.

btw... you say you 2nd guess your decision? are home burglaries going up in your neck of the woods or are you drinking the kool-aid that your right to buy/own a pistol is about to be taken away?

cubanstogie
04-16-2009, 11:51 PM
same here. as a gun lover, that is the delimma i am faced with. but i did take my 5 1/2 old out to the range a month or so ago just to watch and she didnt seem scared. i may see if she wants a bb gun around 8-9 and then go from there.

my guns are kept elsewhere. i have a bat.

btw... you say you 2nd guess your decision? are home burglaries going up in your neck of the woods or are you drinking the kool-aid that your right to buy/own a pistol is about to be taken away?

Burglaries have not been a big factor where I live, knock on wood. I am gone for a couple of nights a week and have always wrestled with the decision to have a gun or not. I currently have an alarm, but no gun. I would feel more secure if my wife had a gun, conditional of her actually knowing how to use it. No I am not paranoid about the right to own a gun being taken away at all.

tony hipchest
04-17-2009, 12:20 AM
Burglaries have not been a big factor where I live, knock on wood. I am gone for a couple of nights a week and have always wrestled with the decision to have a gun or not. makes sense both pro and con for having 1 in the house I currently have an alarm, but no gun. I would feel more secure if my wife had a gun, conditional of her actually knowing how to use it. :chuckle: im with a psychobitch so i guess i feel safer w/o one here. :laughing:No I am not paranoid about the right to own a gun being taken away at all. good deal.

yeah, we have a peg legged clinical woman who lives in the neighbrhood. her son, who is a burlary fellon has moved in since her last trip to the county jail. theyre typical meth heads living off a huge monthly settlement check. i also have a disgruntled employee, living out of a van who owns a gun and has just been dumped by his wife and lost his job, and has nothing to lose.

i'd like to have my license for a concealed weapon right about now.

steelwall
04-17-2009, 12:32 AM
A few months back someone or some people tried to break into my dads home. Thing is they managed to get into the back door but that leads to the laundry room and there is another exterior door there to get into the house. My dad was sleeping in his chair at the time and never woke up. For some reason they did not try to break into the house.


This was at night time mind you, they would have to have known someone was home. The next day my dad found the sight from a gun on the back porch (apparently they used the gun to pry open the storm door) They went through all his vehicles outside and stole some things from the garage.

Had they have gotten in the house with my dad only feet away this story could have had a different ending.

I'm just saying.... law abiding citizens may turn in their "assult" weapons but criminals never will. Where does that leave us...the ones who obey the law?

I say take all the time and money being spent on legeslation and put it into better equiping our police force.

MACH1
04-17-2009, 12:58 AM
I have a five year old daughter and am hesitant to have a gun in the house. I have always thought there is a greater chance of an accident with her and her friends or cousins than me using it on a burglar. Lately I am starting to second guess my decision and am seriously ready to get a pistol.

If you decide to get one, you could always get one of those little handgun safes to keep it in. Might not help you much if you need to get to it in a hurry, but it will keep it out of little hands.

steelreserve
04-17-2009, 11:54 AM
The next day my dad found the sight from a gun on the back porch (apparently they used the gun to pry open the storm door)

See? Just further evidence that assault weapons have a variety of uses, not only for killing.

Ever hear about that time where a guy was out hiking in the woods and his arm got pinned underneath a boulder during a rockslide, and he finally freed himself by using his assault rifle as a lever to lift the boulder off? Neither did I, because I just made that story up right now. But you can see how important guns can be as a tool, whether it's life-or-death situations or in everyday living.

tony hipchest
04-17-2009, 12:40 PM
yeak, like in joe dirt, when the drunk dad got his foot stuck in the train tracks and sent the dog for help. but with an oncoming train and the dog deciding to stop and get laid, he freed himself by blowing off his knee with the shotgun? :chuckle:

that stuff happens every day.

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 02:19 PM
See? Just further evidence that assault weapons have a variety of uses, not only for killing.

Ever hear about that time where a guy was out hiking in the woods and his arm got pinned underneath a boulder during a rockslide, and he finally freed himself by using his assault rifle as a lever to lift the boulder off? Neither did I, because I just made that story up right now. But you can see how important guns can be as a tool, whether it's life-or-death situations or in everyday living.

HAHAHAHA :thumbsup::toofunny:

Vincent
04-17-2009, 02:23 PM
Gun ownership is clearly addressed in the 2nd Amendment. "Abridge" is the key word...

a⋅bridge

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Easy translation - congress has nothing legitimate to say about arms of any kind. The 2nd Amendment says we can own ANY form of arms and that any form of arms legislation is unconstitutional. Further, it charges us with the responsibility to bear arms. And its purpose is quite clear.

The Fathers correctly framed that right as "being necessary to the security of a free State". Armed citizens are the balance to the gubmint. Armed citizens are free citizens. That is precisely why politicians prefer unarmed citizens. In my view, any proponent of arms control should be stripped of their office and prosecuted for sedition because what they are doing is attempting to disrupt the order established by the Founders.

Registering one's sporting equipment is not only inappropriate, but unconstitutional.

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 02:28 PM
Gun ownership is clearly addressed in the 2nd Amendment. "Abridge" is the key word...

a⋅bridge

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Easy translation - congress has nothing legitimate to say about arms of any kind. The 2nd Amendment says we can own ANY form of arms and that any form of arms legislation is unconstitutional. Further, it charges us with the responsibility to bear arms. And its purpose is quite clear.

The Fathers correctly framed that right as "being necessary to the security of a free State". Armed citizens are the balance to the gubmint. Armed citizens are free citizens. That is precisely why politicians prefer unarmed citizens. In my view, any proponent of arms control should be stripped of their office and prosecuted for sedition because what they are doing is attempting to disrupt the order established by the Founders.

Registering one's sporting equipment is not only inappropriate, but unconstitutional.

So does a nuclear weapon constitute arms by your constitutional definition? If so, are you ok with your neighbor working on a nuclear based "arm?" Just curious.

Vincent
04-17-2009, 02:37 PM
So does a nuclear weapon constitute arms by your constitutional definition? If so, are you ok with your neighbor working on a nuclear based "arm?" Just curious.

I'm older but wasn't involved in writing the Constitution. So I am instructed by the simple words the Framers wrote, and their clear intent. While I am comfortable with me owning nuclear arms, some neighbors we have had I'm not so sure about. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with any neighbor working on nuclear arms. Stick with simple stuff like Molatovs and Claymores and leave the tricky stuff to the experts.

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 02:39 PM
I'm older but wasn't involved in writing the Constitution. So I am instructed by the simple words the Framers wrote, and their clear intent. While I am comfortable with me owning nuclear arms, some neighbors we have had I'm not so sure about. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with any neighbor working on nuclear arms. Stick with simple stuff like Molatovs and Claymores and leave the tricky stuff to the experts.

Well, that's the rub, if I live next door to you and want to own a nuclear based weapon, why should I not be allowed to? If the Legislature cannot restrict "arms" in any fashion, why can't I own my nuclear gun?

SteelMember
04-17-2009, 02:39 PM
actually i havent, but would love to try. ive wasted lizards and bunnies with a 12 guage though.

the 1st time i ever got drunk in the 4th grade (my 1st whole beer) we were poaching bunnies in the back of a pick up with a spotlight and wasting cotton tails. (best friends moms BF was pretty cool).

we got a kangaroo rat too! :thumbsup: (i didnt hit shit but it was my 1st time shootin a shotgun and drinking a beer. good times!

oh, to be 9 again.

wow. maybe i am fukked up. :laughing:

Careful son, you'll spill your beer.

http://www.docjelly.com/Blog/content/binary/Southpark_ep103_1.jpg

:sofunny:

Vincent
04-17-2009, 02:44 PM
Well, that's the rub, if I live next door to you and want to own a nuclear based weapon, why should I not be allowed to? If the Legislature cannot restrict "arms" in any fashion, why can't I own my nuclear gun?

Point well made. We have had neighbors that we would prefer not have nukes.

"Somebody exploded an H-bomb today. But it wasn't anyone I knew"

All fun aside, where do you draw the line?

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 02:53 PM
Point well made. We have had neighbors that we would prefer not have nukes.

All fun aside, where do you draw the line?

Personally, I think an assault weapons ban is good line. Still leaves a large number of weapons for sport and self-defense. I look at it like this; back when the constitution was written, they could never have envisioned the types of weapons we have now, nor can we envision the ones we will have in the future. While I tend to be an originalist in my Constitutional interpretation, I don't think a limit on the types of arms citizens are allowed to bear would be too terrible.

Vincent
04-17-2009, 03:04 PM
Personally, I think an assault weapons ban is good line. Still leaves a large number of weapons for sport and self-defense. I look at it like this; back when the constitution was written, they could never have envisioned the types of weapons we have now, nor can we envision the ones we will have in the future. While I tend to be an originalist in my Constitutional interpretation, I don't think a limit on the types of arms citizens are allowed to bear would be too terrible.

As an originalist you surely realize the intent of that amendment was to balance power. There is no balance in the gubmint having tanks and planes and nukes, and the citizens having sporting equipment.

And the very carefully chosen words forbid congress from abridging that right. It is what it is.

Little known fact. Switzerland remained free while the nazis overran Europe because their citizens are armed. The Swiss pointed out to the german high command that their officer corps would be decimated if they were to invade. To this day you will see the Swiss in public with their military gear.

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 03:19 PM
As an originalist you surely realize the intent of that amendment was to balance power. There is no balance in the gubmint having tanks and planes and nukes, and the citizens having sporting equipment.

And the very carefully chosen words forbid congress from abridging that right. It is what it is.

Little known fact. Switzerland remained free while the nazis overran Europe because their citizens are armed. The Swiss pointed out to the german high command that their officer corps would be decimated if they were to invade. To this day you will see the Swiss in public with their military gear.

I think you are confusing infringed with abridged. Anyway, I think the purpose is clear, "a well regulated militia," that says nothing about balance of power to me, but more about the security and defense of a free State, but hey reasonable minds can differ.

Vincent
04-17-2009, 03:26 PM
but hey reasonable minds can differ.

Is this a great country or what??!!! :drink: :hatsoff:

tony hipchest
04-17-2009, 03:48 PM
As an originalist you surely realize the intent of that amendment was to balance power. There is no balance in the gubmint having tanks and planes and nukes, and the citizens having sporting equipment.

.which brings us to a dilemma. there are only two possible ways to achieve this "balance" that was the original intent.

1) we either make nukes, planes, tanks available to all private citezens. OR

2) we disband the military or strip them down to where they have nothing but sporting equipment. (which is basically all the revolutionaries had- kniives, swords, horses, rifles, pistols, muskets).

in other words the original intent is vastly outdated and to try to live by it literally, is suicide.

Fire Haley
04-17-2009, 03:59 PM
Gunshow coming to town...I better git me another coupla thousand rds for my AK's/SKS's. Just to be safe.

I just like to blow up ammo.

Is there a law against that?

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 04:17 PM
Probably a law prohibiting where you can blow ammo up at, yes.

Vincent
04-17-2009, 04:21 PM
in other words the original intent is vastly outdated and to try to live by it literally, is suicide.

The intent foresaw the dilemma.

Disarming either side isn't practical. And citizens can't afford the gear the gubmint has, although that would be a better use of "stimulus money" than some of the @#$% the gubmint wastes money on. :chuckle:

IMHO, and in keeping with the "spirit" of the amendment, the Swiss solution gives us practical guidance. Everybody should have the opportunity to be trained (we do) and be armed (we don't) the same "small arms" the armed forces use.

I live outside of a southern NFL city known for its gangs. The gangs are armed to the teeth, so much so that the gubmint not only can't match them, the gubmint "deals" with the situation by ignoring it. Kids take their automatic weapons to school. Kids have stuff like M-60s.

In any scenario, the only purpose police serve is post incident documentation. Anyone that thinks the police will protect you is seriously deluded. Throughout our history that is why folks have been armed. And as the society continues to break down the need to be armed accelerates.

Retros know that it is their responsibility to protect and defend their families.

So where is the line? I couldn't afford an F22 and its support. And I @#$%ed well couldn't fly it. And while I'm comfortable at speed in the snow, I'd be skittish in an Abrams. :chuckle: But I think the Barrett Model 95 is an excellent choice for the urban rooftop, and crude as they are, the Kalashnikov line of sporting equipment is great for that "close in" work. And they're cheap and reliable.

Vincent
04-17-2009, 04:23 PM
Gunshow coming to town...I better git me another coupla thousand rds for my AK's/SKS's. Just to be safe.

7.62, if you can find it is real dam expensive.

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 04:23 PM
which brings us to a dilemma. there are only two possible ways to achieve this "balance" that was the original intent.

1) we either make nukes, planes, tanks available to all private citezens. OR

2) we disband the military or strip them down to where they have nothing but sporting equipment. (which is basically all the revolutionaries had- kniives, swords, horses, rifles, pistols, muskets).

in other words the original intent is vastly outdated and to try to live by it literally, is suicide.

While I disagree that is the original intent, I'm sure there is a "balance" between your two solutions, an assault weapons ban.:thumbsup:

steelwall
04-17-2009, 10:43 PM
Toney is just argueing for the sake of argueing. He was the crazy kid our there getting drunk at 9 years old blowing away bunnies with a 12 gauge from the back of a pick up :sofunny:

Seriously, we have gotten into this before. The "assualt" weapons that everybody is so afraid of, and can be bought from about any pawn shop, are really not uch different from weapons that would absolutly not fall under this ban.

Automatic weapons are allready banned, these AK's and SKS' are being sold semi-automatic. Tons of other guns out there are semi-auto. The ban won'twork. It will not take these guns out of the "loonies" hands, and would probably push more people over the edge.

SteelersinCA
04-17-2009, 11:10 PM
Toney is just argueing for the sake of argueing. He was the crazy kid our there getting drunk at 9 years old blowing away bunnies with a 12 gauge from the back of a pick up :sofunny:

Seriously, we have gotten into this before. The "assualt" weapons that everybody is so afraid of, and can be bought from about any pawn shop, are really not uch different from weapons that would absolutly not fall under this ban.

Automatic weapons are allready banned, these AK's and SKS' are being sold semi-automatic. Tons of other guns out there are semi-auto. The ban won'twork. It will not take these guns out of the "loonies" hands, and would probably push more people over the edge.

I agree with you there.

SteelersinCA
04-18-2009, 09:30 PM
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/201085

This is why we need guns

I like how the 911 dispatcher directs her to tell her husband to put the gun down, "if he shot him, he isn't going to come in." Like the husband repeatedly saying I don't want to hurt you had some deterring effect. :coffee:

Incidentally, home defense is one of the reasons the Supreme Court used to rule D.C.'s gun ban unconstitutional.

Vincent
04-19-2009, 08:43 AM
Sure HTG why not let them ban AKs, because we all know that is only the beginning. One at a time England ahas eliminated gun "types" till they can't even get a shotgun to hunt with.


qGVAQOUi6ec

Watch the above video people. This is what is in store for us here.

With all due respect to "law enforcement", don't delude yourself into thinking they protect you and yours in any way. The bad guys are and will always be armed. Your only defense is what measures you have taken for yourself.

And the PoS "we" elected is coming to take your guns. He is the criminal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtaH8GHAfrI

SteelersinCA
04-19-2009, 12:16 PM
Watch the above video people. This is what is in store for us here.

With all due respect to "law enforcement", don't delude yourself into thinking they protect you and yours in any way. The bad guys are and will always be armed. Your only defense is what measures you have taken for yourself.

And the PoS "we" elected is coming to take your guns. He is the criminal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtaH8GHAfrI

You do realize that the President cannot "take" your guns? The President does not create laws, Congress does. Even if Congress passes a law banning all guns, the current Supreme Court would never let it fly given their stance on D.C.'s gun ban. So you would have to have one of the conservative Justices retire, which I doubt will happen until Obama's 2nd term, if there is one.

Bottom line, your guns are safe for at least 4 more years.

MACH1
04-19-2009, 02:03 PM
You do realize that the President cannot "take" your guns? The President does not create laws, Congress does. Even if Congress passes a law banning all guns, the current Supreme Court would never let it fly given their stance on D.C.'s gun ban. So you would have to have one of the conservative Justices retire, which I doubt will happen until Obama's 2nd term, if there is one.

Bottom line, your guns are safe for at least 4 more years.

It depends on what nancy bitchlosi can get pushed through.

SteelersinCA
04-19-2009, 02:36 PM
It depends on what nancy bitchlosi can get pushed through.

They don't have the balls to try a gun ban. They realize it would be dumb and the SCOTUS would crush it instantaneously.

Vincent
04-19-2009, 02:55 PM
You do realize that the President cannot "take" your guns? The President does not create laws, Congress does. Even if Congress passes a law banning all guns, the current Supreme Court would never let it fly given their stance on D.C.'s gun ban. So you would have to have one of the conservative Justices retire, which I doubt will happen until Obama's 2nd term, if there is one.

Bottom line, your guns are safe for at least 4 more years.

The President sets the agenda. Congress enacts laws. Thats why the 2nd stated that the right shall not be abridged. The problem here is that the house, senate, and White House are occupied by left wing activists that are unified in their desire to disarm their constituents, and operate largely unopposed, save their armed constituency

We don't have the balance of a "two party" system because the stupid party abdicated to the dems. The only balance to the out of control federalies is an armed and seriously pissed off electorate. And hopefully 2010 will sent these marxist @#$#$#@#$#$ers back to their holes and leave bho alone in the White House until he's dispatched in 2012.