Originally posted by lazs2
raptor.. I have to say that you have about the least understanding of the second amendment that I have seen in a while.
your ignorance about the second being about hunting is only slightly less offensive than your condencending attitude about what guns you will let me own based on.. on you ignorance of firearms.
I am glad that you would allow me to have a 45 magnum instead of those evil 9 mm's tho.. if only I knew what a 45 magnum revolver was.
There once was a short lived "45 magnum" semi auto.. I still have some of the brass for curios. There is no 45 magnum.
you can hunt with any firearm out there including weak black powder revolvers or even a knife.
I can only imagine that all the rest of your opinions on osamabama are as ill informed and based on the same brand of ignorance as your second amendment one.
lazs
Lazs, I never stated anything remotely saying that the second ammendment meant hunting. I was stating that people often argue that they have several hunting guns they do not want to lose and bring up the second amendment in their defence. I then described why I have no problem with hunting weapons.
Also if you read what I said, I never said anything about banning a gun. If you read what I said, I said my opinion is that certain weapons should have higher requirements to own, for example the 9mm.
lazs, my mistake... .44 magnum, even though I'm sure you knew what I was talking about you just needed to try to find something to nitpick at even if what you chose wasn't necessarily constructive in any way.
Heck, you can hunt with a stick and a rock if you want. Yet you know as well as I do that no one sets out to buy a 9mm with the intention of using it for hunting. An ill informed person may buy it to defend himself if he is going bear hunting... however any reasonable gun salesman would tell him that's not going to do much against a bear.
Originally posted by Toad
He pretty much says it all right there. As long as his particular oxen are not being gored he's fine with getting rid of that pesky Constitutional gibberish.
I was responding to Shamroc, who said he was voting on account of what was important to him. Thus gun control proposals are not a concern for me and I will vote accordingly.
With a lack of widespread modern militias, I don't see many people exercising their second amendment rights. The National Guard performs what old militias would have done, and the National Guard is under the President. If the government were to come to a point where the people needed/wanted to change it to the point of rebellion, I don't think they care about laws imposed by the government restricting their use of guns.
As for self defense, it may vary from state to state. In North Carolina (one of the states you listed) it was stated that you could not use a gun in self defense unless the attacker commits an act of violence which is life threatening. Even then one might be condemned if they aim to kill instead of wound.
Originally posted by lazs2 read these boards.. there are plenty here who want nothing more than to increase the powers of government and to take away the powers of the individual... [/b]
The power of the government has increased dramatically under the Bush administration, while infringing on individual rights. Not to mention the increased spending.
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. he is a "lemming of pray". that says something.
Just for your own benefit. When you resort to personal attacks you begin to lose credibility. I'm not offended by any of the remarks you've made, however it gives off the impression you are incapable of making a legitimate argument.
