Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[TonyJoey]

A head axe has an obvious purpose...

A little common sense goes a long way.

That was just one example of something that fell under the law. I'm sure there were others.

PS: One could argue that an M16 or AK47 is made with one purpose in mind.

[Melvin]

One could argue that an M16 or AK47 is made with one purpose in mind.

This would be awful for killing food or splitting firewood.



However, one of these is magnificent for putting food on the table, as well as sport and self defense.




And yes, they are both good for killing. However, how they are used is up to the person in possession.

[TonyJoey]

From the Supreme Court's opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, written by Scalia, arguably the most conservative justice on the Court:

 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

[Melvin]

From the Supreme Court's opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, written by Scalia, arguably the most conservative justice on the Court:

 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Uh yeah, don't you get it yet? This is why we can't all cruise around with M2 .50 cals on top of our jeeps when we take our kids to school. And that's fine with me (although I would really like to sometimes.)

 

[TonyJoey]

This would be awful for killing food or splitting firewood.

(Image removed from quote.)

However, one of these is magnificent for putting food on the table, as well as sport and self defense.

(Image removed from quote.)


And yes, they are both good for killing. However, how they are used is up to the person in possession.

He brought up purpose. I don't think the M-16 was developed with hunting in mind...

[TonyJoey]

Uh yeah, don't you get it yet? This is why we can't all cruise around with M2 .50 cals on top of our jeeps when we take our kids to school. And that's fine with me (although I would really like to sometimes.)

 

Mel, Vonmessa believes any regulations or restritions on arms violate the Constitution. My post is responding to him.

[Melvin]

And nuclear fission wasn't discovered with the intent of producing clean energy... but here we are.


So what's your point?


(In response to the "purpose" argument.)

[TonyJoey]

And nuclear fission wasn't discovered with the intent of producing clean energy... but here we are.
So what's your point?
(In response to the "purpose" argument.)

He said it takes common sense to understand the ban of openly carrying a weapon with the obvious purpose of killing someone. My point is that one could argue that an M16 was made with a similarly obvious purpose. But I digress.

 

[Widewing]

He brought up purpose. I don't think the M-16 was developed with hunting in mind...

The 2nd Amendment has no basis in hunting... Let's leave hunting out of the debate... It's a strawman used falsely to justify limiting the type of weapon owned. All guns are designed to kill something. Rapists, murderers, and the like as well as some venison if the need arises. Any weapon that kills can take game.

[Widewing]

People have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean regulations and restrictions cannot be put in place. There were arms limits in place at the time of the Constitution about the nature of weapons that people could have.  

Reasonable restrictions... Like Scalia stated... Not in schools, courthouses and other similar sensitive locations. What arms restrictions were in place related to the nature of weapons in 1789? No artillery in public outhouses?

[TonyJoey]

Reasonable restrictions... Like Scalia stated... Not in schools, courthouses and other similar sensitive locations. What arms restrictions were in place related to the nature of weapons in 1789? No artillery in public outhouses?

He touched on the idea that only weapons that could be "borne" were protected. So, like he states, cannons are not protected.

[VonMessa]

That was just one example of something that fell under the law. I'm sure there were others.

PS: One could argue that an M16 or AK47 is made with one purpose in mind.

PPS:  Not very successfully...

[guncrasher]

Well... ummm, that particular deal was a bit more complex.  

You see, the U.S. government used the Israelis to secretly ship arms into Iran with the intent of freeing seven American hostages. Inevitably a resourceful Colonel got the bright idea to funnel the funds from the illegal, and thus "black" operation to anti-communist rebels in Central America. It was a win-win for the advancement of the western military machine (especially when you stop to think of all the Iraqi's killed by the bought arms, as well as all the communists killed by the dollars we sent to the rebels).

Fast and furious was child's play in comparison.



And never mind all of the innocent lives lost in either instance because, you know, there is always an acceptable amount of collateral damage when the interests of the power players are at stake. Peasants like you and me are merely grist for the mill in their eyes. This is one reason I prefer to be part of a well armed civilian population.

 

I am pretty sure the Iranians kept those weapons from hurting anybody as oposite to what happened somewhere "else".


semp

[Melvin]

I am pretty sure the Iranians kept those weapons from hurting anybody as oposite to what happened somewhere "else".


semp

  You're kidding right?


EDIT: I mean really, during the height of the Iran/Iraq war you believe that the Iranians never used any of the weapons we sold them (to include TOW missile systems)?

You must be trolling me.

And where exactly is the somewhere "else"?

[guncrasher]

  You're kidding right?


EDIT: I mean really, during the height of the Iran/Iraq war you believe that the Iranians never used any of the weapons we sold them (to include TOW missile systems)?

You must be trolling me.

And where exactly is the somewhere "else"?

you do understand sarcasm right?  because it was in reply to your comment here.

Well... ummm, that particular deal was a bit more complex.  

You see, the U.S. government used the Israelis to secretly ship arms into Iran with the intent of freeing seven American hostages. Inevitably a resourceful Colonel got the bright idea to funnel the funds from the illegal, and thus "black" operation to anti-communist rebels in Central America. It was a win-win for the advancement of the western military machine (especially when you stop to think of all the Iraqi's killed by the bought arms, as well as all the communists killed by the dollars we sent to the rebels).

Fast and furious was child's play in comparison.



And never mind all of the innocent lives lost in either instance because, you know, there is always an acceptable amount of collateral damage when the interests of the power players are at stake. Peasants like you and me are merely grist for the mill in their eyes. This is one reason I prefer to be part of a well armed civilian population.

 

there's no difference between one and the other.  we allowed guns to be sold to people we shouldnt have. so basically pick a side and stick to it.

semp