No Carry Permit

[summer44]

Wording. You have the right to bear arms. Is a nuclear bomb an arm? Can I use it to BBQ every deer in the zone. If I am hunting deer with a tank and you say no, thats an infringement. If you say I cant own a nuclear device thats infringement. If you limit my household to what I can store in it regardless if there is a fire and the explosion would take out 5 houses near me, thats an infringement. Speed limits other than the need bring in revenue are put in place to keep a level of normality. Personally I dislike laws telling me what I can own. I do however see why they are there. You of course can ignore speed limits if you dont mind paying the price if you get caught.

Tanks can be owned and nukes are not arms. Ordnance would be a better definition. What point are you trying to make? That it is acceptable to put limits on the 2a? If so you may be on the wrong forum. The Brady campaign may have a forum more to your liking. Then again maybe I have misinterpreted what you're trying to convey

 

[MaconGuns]

Tanks can be owned and nukes are not arms. Ordnance would be a better definition. What point are you trying to make? That it is acceptable to put limits on the 2a? If so you may be on the wrong forum. The Brady campaign may have a forum more to your liking. Then again maybe I have misinterpreted what you're trying to convey

Yup you can buy a tank. Not sure how to get the shells to shoot it or a license to drive it down the road. Also I believe they do not allow it for deer hunting. I'd like to see you explain to a judge why you felt the need to defend yourself with a bazooka or flamethrower. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. I might need a Nuke to defend myself from an invading country. As far as being in the wrong forum thats the far right talking. The guy that thinks everything should be legal as well as the far left thinking everything should be legal. I want to sit on my porch married to my cousins dog while cleaning my portable SAM. I'll take the family tank to the Dollar Store to pick up my childs smoke-able medication. Any Gov road blocks and Ill blast though them because I am Rambo hear me roar. I think of common sense as also a reality check. You will never be free unless the world devolves into a state of lawlessness. You will then only be free if you are top dog and you will be checking your back every time you walk out your door. Dont get me wrong, some people will thrive in this mad max environment and pockets of criminals and war lords will be hunting the weak. I personally will not thrive. I do not have the skills to survive for years off the land. I doubt most that pop up and beat their chest here do either. The few that do have a hard road before them. ATM we have a happy balance and it should remain as it is. Modifying it will only make matters worse for 50% of whoever it goes against. I am ok with no full autos since its a waste of ammo anyway. I would love to own one though. Not willing to pay the extra to get it. I wouldnt mind not needed a stamp for a suppressor. But $200 isnt out of reach for most people. If you arent happy with limits on your freedoms then perhaps you are in the wrong forum? They limit what you are allowed to say. Pretty sure freedom of speech is a big issue with most of the right. On my original topic so I can attempt to keep this in the original section and subject. I am OK with a licensed carry IF it is done will common sense. Children shouldnt carry guns if they arent schooled to do so. I wouldnt want twenty twelve year olds carrying to school if their parents we not competent firearms owners.
Firearms safety should be taught in EVERY school. I received a patch a long time ago for hunters safety course why not make it an elective so the left cant whine they dont want their child in it.

 

[gh1950]

Do you really think that a government backed by billions with stealth bombers and a vast amount of personal cant take out well armed posse causing issues?

It (the government) couldn't take them out in Viet Nam and Afghanistan.

 

[summer44]

Yup you can buy a tank. Not sure how to get the shells to shoot it or a license to drive it down the road. Also I believe they do not allow it for deer hunting. I'd like to see you explain to a judge why you felt the need to defend yourself with a bazooka or flamethrower. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. I might need a Nuke to defend myself from an invading country. As far as being in the wrong forum thats the far right talking. The guy that thinks everything should be legal as well as the far left thinking everything should be legal. I want to sit on my porch married to my cousins dog while cleaning my portable SAM. I'll take the family tank to the Dollar Store to pick up my childs smoke-able medication. Any Gov road blocks and Ill blast though them because I am Rambo hear me roar. I think of common sense as also a reality check. You will never be free unless the world devolves into a state of lawlessness. You will then only be free if you are top dog and you will be checking your back every time you walk out your door. Dont get me wrong, some people will thrive in this mad max environment and pockets of criminals and war lords will be hunting the weak. I personally will not thrive. I do not have the skills to survive for years off the land. I doubt most that pop up and beat their chest here do either. The few that do have a hard road before them. ATM we have a happy balance and it should remain as it is. Modifying it will only make matters worse for 50% of whoever it goes against. I am ok with no full autos since its a waste of ammo anyway. I would love to own one though. Not willing to pay the extra to get it. I wouldnt mind not needed a stamp for a suppressor. But $200 isnt out of reach for most people. If you arent happy with limits on your freedoms then perhaps you are in the wrong forum? They limit what you are allowed to say. Pretty sure freedom of speech is a big issue with most of the right. On my original topic so I can attempt to keep this in the original section and subject. I am OK with a licensed carry IF it is done will common sense. Children shouldnt carry guns if they arent schooled to do so. I wouldnt want twenty twelve year olds carrying to school if their parents we not competent firearms owners.
Firearms safety should be taught in EVERY school. I received a patch a long time ago for hunters safety course why not make it an elective so the left cant whine they dont want their child in it.

if believing the Constitution should be applied as written, defines one as far right then I am far right
And proud of it

 

[GeauxLSU]

Do you really think that a government backed by billions with stealth bombers and a vast amount of personal cant take out well armed posse causing issues? Do you think we should own Surface to Air missiles. The government protects us daily if we like it or not. Thats what the armed forces are for and the police that take notes after stuff happens. I think there should be a mix of both. Cops cant and shouldnt follow you everywhere. If you think its ok for anyone to own and transport items that could possible kill millions then Ive no idea why you would be ok with grounding of planes to prevent thousands of deaths from the spreading of a virus. Dont get me wrong, we are on the fringes of martial law and with the stimulus cash the fringes of socialism. But not everything that goes against what you want is a bad thing. While guns may protect us from bad guys I do not seeing owning one preventing a hostile government from dethroning us. Its a lot different than it was when it was musket to musket. Not saying there wont be bloodshed but it wont be easy or pretty. If the Government wasnt in place, we would all be speaking a different language

Macon you are all over the place. Let's make this real simple for the both of us. Focus like a laser.....
1. What is the purpose/reason for the Second Amendment?
2. Given your answer to #1, should there be any restrictions placed on the citizenry in terms of weaponry? If so, why?

 

[MaconGuns]

It (the government) couldn't take them out in Viet Nam and Afghanistan.

They weren't allowed to. If you think that the full might of the American Military could not stop anyone other than one of the superpowers then I am at a loss for words. Its all political BS and there are reasons within reasons.

 

[MaconGuns]

Macon you are all over the place. Let's make this real simple for the both of us. Focus like a laser.....
1. What is the purpose/reason for the Second Amendment?
2. Given your answer to #1, should there be any restrictions placed on the citizenry in terms of weaponry? If so, why?

Well-Regulated Militia
Practically since its ratification, Americans have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment, with vehement arguments being made on both sides.

The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units.

Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. They argue that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized groups, like the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias after the Civil War.

On the other side are those who argue that the Second Amendment gives all citizens, not just militias, the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), founded in 1871, and its supporters have been the most visible proponents of this argument, and have pursued a vigorous campaign against gun control measures at the local, state and federal levels.

The only people that actually know the answer for what they intended are dead and dust. IMHO it was ordinary people that formed the militia. So IMHO ordinary people should own firearms. Also IMHO these ordinary people viewed guns as a normal part of life and used them as tools to hunt and put food on the table as well as the secondary benefit of personal protection. These guns were not 100 round barrel mags fed into a full auto 50 BFG with AP rounds. These were normal guns used for normal use. It just so happens that they were used to protect our freedom. If guns were not invented people would have used rocks, spears or bows. just so happens that bows didnt work to well for the Indians. Ask them how they enjoyed the freedom we brought with us. If the intent was to protect us from the government then we are already outclassed. Police are as well armed as the average gun guy. The Military is better armed than any private citizen and well funded. When brought together they are a powerful force that even a well organized group would have problems dealing with regardless of how much ammo your mags will hold.

There's no way for Uncle Sam to remove guns. Just to many of them. They can literally tax ammo so heavy as to put it out of reach for most people and for future purchases. The effects wont be instant but your kids kids might not know what gunsmoke smells like unless its homemade.

Saying 2A allows you the right to any device created by the military because you may need to defend yourself from the military is ludicrous. Thinking the right to own a rifle or pistol will protect you from anything other than the basic criminal or wild hog is interesting. Even the most well armed cell wont hold up to a bunker breaker dropped at 3am or a guided drone into your SUV. I put noting past people in power with bottomless pockets.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Saying 2A allows you the right to any device created by the military because you may need to defend yourself from the military is ludicrous. Thinking the right to own a rifle or pistol will protect you from anything other than the basic criminal or wild hog is interesting. Even the most well armed cell wont hold up to a bunker breaker dropped at 3am or a guided drone into your SUV. I put noting past people in power with bottomless pockets.

Your post may contain the single most contradictions of any I've ever read on these boards. That's no small feat. Congrats. And an impressive attempt at open ended revisionist history to boot. The founders may be dust, but their extensive writings on the subject and clear intent are not. READ. So BMGs and tanks didn't exist therefore they're not applicable? It was meant to limit the citizenry to the tools at a point in time? I assume you're being serious. So you are one that thinks your freedom of speech is limited to pen and ink? A quill pen of course. I wish your post was unbelievable but of course it is not. It represents a defeated subject that soothes its wounds with tortured and contradictory justifications, spoon fed those justifications by a gun grabbing left.
The future is bright.

 

[Gunanddoglover]

Your post may contain the single most contradictions of any I've ever read on these boards. That's no small feat. Congrats. And an impressive attempt at open ended revisionist history to boot. The founders may be dust, but their extensive writings on the subject and clear intent are not. READ. So BMGs and tanks didn't exist therefore they're not applicable? It was meant to limit the citizenry to the tools at a point in time? I assume you're being serious. So you are one that thinks your freedom of speech is limited to pen and ink? A quill pen of course. I wish your post was unbelievable but of course it is not. It represents a defeated subject that soothes its wounds with tortured and contradictory justifications, spoon fed those justifications by a gun grabbing left.
The future is bright.

 

[summer44]

The only people that actually know the answer for what they intended are dead and dust. IMHO it was ordinary people that formed the militia. So IMHO ordinary people should own firearms. Also IMHO these ordinary people viewed guns as a normal part of life and used them as tools to hunt and put food on the table as well as the secondary benefit of personal protection. These guns were not 100 round barrel mags fed into a full auto 50 BFG with AP rounds. These were normal guns used for normal use. It just so happens that they were used to protect our freedom. If guns were not invented people would have used rocks, spears or bows. just so happens that bows didnt work to well for the Indians. Ask them how they enjoyed the freedom we brought with us. If the intent was to protect us from the government then we are already outclassed. Police are as well armed as the average gun guy. The Military is better armed than any private citizen and well funded. When brought together they are a powerful force that even a well organized group would have problems dealing with regardless of how much ammo your mags will hold.

There's no way for Uncle Sam to remove guns. Just to many of them. They can literally tax ammo so heavy as to put it out of reach for most people and for future purchases. The effects wont be instant but your kids kids might not know what gunsmoke smells like unless its homemade.

Saying 2A allows you the right to any device created by the military because you may need to defend yourself from the military is ludicrous. Thinking the right to own a rifle or pistol will protect you from anything other than the basic criminal or wild hog is interesting. Even the most well armed cell wont hold up to a bunker breaker dropped at 3am or a guided drone into your SUV. I put noting past people in power with bottomless pockets.

As I said a few post back, you belong on a Brady campaign forum. U spout the same nonsense as they. What are you doing on a progun forum, it is obvious you don't have a clue in regard to the meaning of the 2A. I guess you missed the Heller decision where the SC found that the 2a is an individual right.