Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on April 06, 2004, 10:04:41 PM
-
I know this has been hashed and rehashed but can we talk about something this important too much?
To those of you that claim that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, what does the amendment then guarantee?
I won't put words in your mouths that I haven't already heard. The most common argument seems to be that the 2nd amendment only justifies having an armed military (active and reserve) which we have and so there is no further need for private citizen ownership. However, how would we then overthrow our government (local and/or federal) should it become unrepresentative and/or tyranical?
-
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
To me (a non-lawyer) that sounds pretty straight forwards: The US needs a militia so every US citizen can own arms. It doesn't say anything about only members of the militia can bear arms or that you can bears arms only as part of a militia, just that the state requires that the people may own and keep arms so that a militia may be formed.
Of course it doesn't describe what "arms" means either. So taking it literaly a citizen should have the right to own a tank or a nuclear weapon. Wonder if Lazs can get a cheap little bulgarian knock-off of a russian nuke? :).
-
the trick with overthrowing tyranical governments is...the government has tanks machine guns and training...unless you want every citizen to possess a ak-47 and a RPG with 3000 rounds each to take out the government it just doesnt work...
-
English, being a living language, guarentees that documents written in it will become hard to decipher for original intent and subject to interpretations.
(you will lose your rights to time, if not a direct attack)
Also, in this age of technology we should have better representation for the people's will.
I'll be interested in seeing the answer to your question in a non (this is what it DOESN'T mean) format.
-
It was pretty hot in Philadelphia and we didn't have air conditioning back then. Old Ben Franklin (he was such a kidder) thought it would be a good idea to add a little levity to the proceedings so he proposed that our right to 'bare arms' should not be infringed.
Sorry for the confusion folks.
-
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Sorry for the 'cut and paste' but it's important to understand what 'Well-Regulated' meant when the Constution was written. It's not what we mean today. It's not the same as the SEC 'requlating' the stock market. It's about something 'working' the way it is supposed to.
-
When the constitution writers wrote it up, they meant that every single man was a part of the militia. They could be called up at a moments notice if the country is in a dire situation. It never has been though.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
To those of you that claim that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, what does the amendment then guarantee?
What we think really doesn't matter.
There is not a single gun control law that has been struck down on Constitutional grounds.
Not one.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
What we think really doesn't matter.
There is not a single gun control law that has been struck down on Constitutional grounds.
Not one.
What we think doesn't matter? That is the sort of tyranny that we must be vigilant to oppose.
-
You're jumping to conclusions.
"WE" in this context refers to those that claim that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee law-abiding citizens the complete and unrestricted right to bear arms.
-
Your "we" may mean only a small minority of Americans and if their constitutional rights are violated by a tryanical government have the right, nay, the responsiblity, (;)) to overthrow that government. Violently if necessary.
-
To those of you that claim that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, what does the amendment then guarantee?
Actually... it's not my "WE" at all. You started it.
But to get back to the question...
However, how would we then overthrow our government (local and/or federal) should it become unrepresentative and/or tyranical?
You're not.
You don't have the fire power.
Red Dawn was just a movie.
Your government has guns too, lots of guns, bigger guns, lots of bigger guns. Let Waco be a lesson to you. The last thing you want is the complete and undivided attention of your government.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What we think doesn't matter? That is the sort of tyranny that we must be vigilant to oppose.
That very thought is what gets you branded as a militant in this country, or a member of a "evil" militia. The time has come where by the citizens of this country no longer have a voice in what is done. That said, this government will fall by it's own hand, and the rest of America will follow it's path to demise. Liberalism, Multi-culturalism, and bi-lingualism will be the downfall of this nation, that which is brought forth by our government which is beyond control.
-
"A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Make what you want of it. I own firearms and I have no intention of disowning them. They are my benchmark to my essential and fundamental liberty.
-
Liberalism, Multi-culturalism, and bi-lingualism will be the downfall of this nation, that which is brought forth by our government which is beyond control.
====
I have thought long and hard about this and although I cannot disagree, I am still hopeful that the downward trend can be reversed at some future point, God willing. Or unwilling...hell, lets just have fun with it while we are here :D
-
You're right Sandman, I don't have the firepower, maybe Lazs does. ;) Seriously though, 250 million people even with only 22 caliber rifles are more than a match for our present government. Especially if you consider that the majority of the military will likely join a just revolution.
However, if no one is allowed to own a firearm, a revolution is much more unlikely to ever begin. Or at least until the oppression is far more grievous.
-
A single Waco can be over run without any fuss by anyone, and given no second thought by the American people - so long as the higher ups give some nice details that convince the American people those that are on their own property are crazed and need to die anyway.
Now... multiple pockets of civil unrest with people who have the means to let their voices be heard in a sane manner... the government is fuxx0rd, so long as the people aren't simpletons and easily manipulated by the government.
-SW
-
NM
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Liberalism, Multi-culturalism, and bi-lingualism will be the downfall of this nation, that which is brought forth by our government which is beyond control.
====
I have thought long and hard about this and although I cannot disagree, I am still hopeful that the downward trend can be reversed at some future point, God willing. Or unwilling...hell, lets just have fun with it while we are here :D
Amen.
Karaya
-
Sandman, you need to think outside the liberal monocular. Waco was a freakshow from both ends of the political spectrum.
And yes, Redawn was a movie, the Civil war of 1862-1865 was not a movie. It was millions and millions of Amercians shedding blood over each other in a dispute over states rights against the perceived federal overreach of power. It could most assuredly happen again in times not far different from ours.
-
The states lost that one, IIRC.
-
I'm all for settling differences lawfully and peacefully. Much like we did in Florida and the Supreme Court after the 2000 election. However, if a candidate had taken taken unlawful control of the election and influenced the Supreme Court to violate our Constitution I'd be demanding justice. If that failed then it'd be time for more forceful action. Those of us with our constitutional rights trampled upon would be taken more seriously if we had guns. That's a big part of what the 2nd amendment is all about.
-
We can say for certain what history is, the future is still a blank chapter.
-SW
-
No argument from me.. an armed populace can make things difficult for the government. I just have a hard time seeing any validity in the "we can overthrow" argument.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No argument from me.. an armed populace can make things difficult for the government. I just have a hard time seeing any validity in the "we can overthrow" argument.
Sure, we're far removed from the American Revolution, however, that argument was very real to the writers of the Constitution. They had afterall just overthrown their own government.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No argument from me.. an armed populace can make things difficult for the government. I just have a hard time seeing any validity in the "we can overthrow" argument.
Why? Asymmetric warfare has worked in the past -- history is full of examples of people overestimating the strength of armies against ragtag resistance movements.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sure, we're far removed from the American Revolution, however, that argument was very real to the writers of the Constitution. They had afterall just overthrown their own government.
True, but they didn't go up against artillery using handguns. :)
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Why? Asymmetric warfare has worked in the past -- history is full of examples of people overestimating the strength of armies against ragtag resistance movements.
History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
True, but they didn't go up against artillery using handguns. :)
You're only strengthening the argument for citizens to own assault weapons.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?
?
I'll assume you're asking for examples. Chechnya. Vietnam (US). Vietnam (France). Chinese Cultural Revolution. Russian Revolution. I hope Iraq isn't shaping up to be one.
And "lost" isn't the right word... the advantage of guerilla warfare is that it doesn't have to "win," because as long as it is fighting the organized army is losing its soldiers and its will to fight. Guerilla armies don't have to "win," they just have to outlast their occupiers.
Are you just being difficult, or can you really not see that the possability exists?
-
Tarmac you are correct on many levels there.
Thats why Im afriad of this becoming another viet nam.
either we should just knock the snot bubbles out of em or come home.
Look we aint scaring these people at all.
They have seen years heck centurys of war.
If we are going to impress apon them to "get with the program"
We are going to have to do something MASSIVE.
Or just say to the world hey we got rid of SH now we are going to get OSNL and come home.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Chinese Cultural Revolution.
0 out of 10 for Chinese History. Start again, think carefully.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
0 out of 10 for Chinese History. Start again, think carefully.
Chinese Communist Revolution. My mistake. :)
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Chinese Communist Revolution. My mistake. :)
Thank you. Mess up again, and my red guard buddies'll drag you through the streets with a dunce's hat on your head and force you to write a self-criticism. ;)
-
I already criticized myself after googling "cultural revolution" and saying "ahh dammit, that's not what I meant." :D
-
Originally posted by vorticon
the trick with overthrowing tyranical governments is...the government has tanks machine guns and training...unless you want every citizen to possess a ak-47 and a RPG with 3000 rounds each to take out the government it just doesnt work...
I can hear a long dead French King saying practically the same thing a few hundred years ago. Listen...., the thing every government in the world fears most is their own population.... and that's the way it should be.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You're right Sandman, I don't have the firepower, maybe Lazs does. ;) Seriously though, 250 million people even with only 22 caliber rifles are more than a match for our present government. Especially if you consider that the majority of the military will likely join a just revolution.
However, if no one is allowed to own a firearm, a revolution is much more unlikely to ever begin. Or at least until the oppression is far more grievous.
No one was bearing arms in Poland, or East Germany or any of the other East bloc countries that were under Soviet domination for 50 years.
The right to bear arms argument put forth is simply an excuse for some people who fo some reason need an excuse for an irrelevant gun collection.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?
Vietnam?
-
Well, I don't like how that "law abiding" can be used. If I get a traffic ticket, am I no longer law abiding? That suks. We are getting closer to having it translated like the new Iraq constitution. I don't know about you guys, but i'm ready to join the NRA.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Why? Asymmetric warfare has worked in the past -- history is full of examples of people overestimating the strength of armies against ragtag resistance movements.
Just ask the Russians who fought in Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?
Yes, Vietnam.
-
You guys are forgetting.
The US military and the US police are made up of american citizens...
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
No one was bearing arms in Poland, or East Germany or any of the other East bloc countries that were under Soviet domination for 50 years.
I'm not understanding what you are saying here? Are you saying that it was a good thing that they didn't bear arms? Was that how Communism was defeated? Not being sarcastic, just not understanding statement.
The right to bear arms argument put forth is simply an excuse for some people who fo some reason need an excuse for an irrelevant gun collection. [/B]
I don't have a gun, but fully support the 2nd amendment. Why do ppl keep thinking that owning guns is evil? People are responsible for their actions... not the guns. If someone wanted to kill someone but didn't have a gun, they are still gonna kill them with something else. Blaming a GUN for the death of someone is a lame excuse NOT a legitamit reason... IMO
-
Being able to defend yourself against tyranny from within (criminals or oppressive government) or without (invasion) is a RIGHT a basic human right. It is not something that should be voted on as kanth intimates. To me that is no different than being able to send all people who are of negro decent back to africa or to have every 3rd female baby killed... you don't get to vote on rights guys.
Red Dawn... sappy movie about an invasion not an overthrow of an unpopular government. History is rife with Vietnams and afgans tho..
Pockets of resistance would cause the collapse of an unpopular government who's sole authority was it's army and police made up of..... citizens. They would not like to be sniped and ambushed for a weak government.
as for the silly arguement (made by those who know nothing of firearms) that the guns of the resistance would be no match for the hi tech weaponry of the "government".... The best weapons to have during a resistance movement at first would be the most common... the scoped hunting rifle and the sawed off shotgun and easily concealed pistol/handgun... what they did then they can do equally well now... an ambushed group of conscripst will provide all the "hitech" modern weaponry needed as will armorys.
you wouldn't need to stand and fite in old style trench warfare. You simply need to resist and disrupt until the unpopular government collapses.
and so far as the equally silly arguement that armed citizens are no help in an invasion... there are several examples around the world right now.
plus..... what is the point? People have not changed much... they are meaner if anything... in the U.S. (which is what we are talking about here) the more citizens armed.... the less crime. so why in the world would you want to remove firearms and increase crime or your ability to defend yourself?
What the liberals fail to see when they wish to destroy the constitution is that a strong well armed people are a free people. that was the intent of the constitution... a well armed population can resist but... what the well meaning girls and girly men are advocating is taking away another check or balance in the system... one needed every bit as much now as then.. they gaurantee government arogance in their short sighted version of "progressive". They trust their government to protect them? Yet they fear every right wing elected... It makes no sense. do they feel that if they remove firearms that they will allways be happy with the current government?
lazs
lazs
-
as for an "irrelevant" gun collection. I have a dozen or so guns.. half are historical arms. I have no problem with people owning "irrelevant" WWII fighter planes that on occassion crash and kill people or antique cars or many other "irrelevant" items... I certainly do not want some british londoner decideing what is relavant for me to own or shoot or drive or eat or whatever.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You're only strengthening the argument for citizens to own assault weapons.
Hell no. I'm strengthening the argument for citizens to own howitzers. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes, Vietnam.
Not a good example. Many will argue that the "superior force" was not applied and that war was winnable.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
However, if a candidate had taken taken unlawful control of the election and influenced the Supreme Court to violate our Constitution I'd be demanding justice.
There are some very credible people who think that this already happened.
-
You don't have to own missiles right now. If you want to overthrow a future evil government, the russian and the french will be more than happy to sell you hi-tech weapons :)
Daniel
-
MT.. maybe but... they are in the extreme minority.
cyrano is correct... all we would have to do is resist long enough for the flow of foriegn hi tech weapons starts.
lazs
-
Know what you mean MT. Fortunately, the attempt to steal the last presidential election was scuttled by the forces of righteousness.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
so just what is a "tyranical" government? one that passes a law that some people dont like? or maybe one that goes to war against the majority of its citizens will to take out an invisible threat when a real threat is elsewhere? or one that is similar to stalin? is the current canadian government tyranical? after all were bilingual multiculturalist liberals and have been for some time...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hell no. I'm strengthening the argument for citizens to own howitzers. :)
I can't imagine a howitzer being called anything but an assault weapon.
Originally posted by midnight Target
There are some very credible people who think that this already happened.
I was beginning to think there weren't any fish in this lake. ;)
-
Vort
I think most here would agree the point the government because tyrannical is:
1: When the government bans all firearms, and then starts to go house to house arresting people for having them. Hopefully this is the last thing they try and take, but it will be the first.
2: The right to free speech is removed, and the government places its own censors in the newsrooms, and arrest people for anti government speech.
3: The right of freedom so assemble. This one like gun control is on the edge of being infringed on. Some of the reports from places like Florida were people doing nothing wrong including reports were arrested and beaten are a little scary, and I am not some pinko anti government type.
4: the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. This one is really being infringed on, hell that article not to long ago about the house that used to much power is a clear case to me that the government, state and Federal are getting out of hand.
The people here that have said armed citizens will stand no chance in revolution against the US government are wrong. Lazer made a good point in that the Military and Police are made up of the people, and when brothers start having to face each other over the line whole units will desert and join the resistance. One man with a hunting rifle can be a huge pain to a conventional military force, and the second the US government has to deploy troops in the US to stop a real armed uprising is the point they lose because it should be a wake up call to the rest of the people in the country that we have let the government go to far.
I do not think we are close to this, and I do not think it has to happen. But they could, and I would rather be armed.
-
Seems like a ridiculous arguement the need to bare an arm to oppose tyranny in the government, surely didn't play that way out in the south during the 60's. And i can remember when in history a democratic society ever elected a govn't which brought tyrany upon its own people. Now on the other hand democratic societies supporting dictators who bring tranny is quite abundant.
-
Its ridiculous right up to the point you need them because your rights are being trampled on.
All governments have failed in the past, and the typical end run for them was a dictatorship in one form or another.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Torque
Seems like a ridiculous arguement the need to bare an arm to oppose tyranny in the government,
I think that our nation's founders and writers of the Constitution would argue that with you.
-
so torque... yu are saying that if something hasn't happened yet politically that it is impossiible and that is a good enough reason to take away peoples rights?
Or, are you saying that no democratic society ever changed into a fascist or communist one ?
or... are you saying that if the govenrnment is not a threat to the people that they do not need to defend themselves from anything else?
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think that our nation's founders and writers of the Constitution would argue that with you.
Oh! But everything has changed sinse then.... we are more civilized now and more evolved. Our founding fathers had to deal with times long gone...... :rolleyes:
-
you know.... the U.S.A. hasn't been invaded by a foreign army in a long time.... so obviously we are just being paranoid... maybe we should just disband the ARMED forces!
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Vort
I think most here would agree the point the government because tyrannical is:
1: When the government bans all firearms, and then starts to go house to house arresting people for having them. Hopefully this is the last thing they try and take, but it will be the first.
2: The right to free speech is removed, and the government places its own censors in the newsrooms, and arrest people for anti government speech.
3: The right of freedom so assemble. This one like gun control is on the edge of being infringed on. Some of the reports from places like Florida were people doing nothing wrong including reports were arrested and beaten are a little scary, and I am not some pinko anti government type.
4: the right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. This one is really being infringed on, hell that article not to long ago about the house that used to much power is a clear case to me that the government, state and Federal are getting out of hand.
works for me...and isnt number 4 only happening because your republican governments equivilent of canadas war measures act?
as torque said the nice thing about democratic elections is if you dont like the government you just vote em out next election...
to bad you cant be sure that the leader of a rebellion will be any better than the previous government...
as ive said before i dont have anything against people owning guns...i just dont like em owning assault weapons... (the majority of gun crimes are by gangs...and they kill enough of each other with relativly cheap handguns...if they could walk to the corner gun shop and grab a RPG or ak the death tolls in gang wars would be quite a bit higher)
-
Vort,
Sure now we can just vote out the bad president, but once damage is done, it is rarely fixed by the new guy in ofice, whos to say under the guise of National security the "bad" president doesnt suspend elections, etc.
The whole unlaw search thing can not be blamed just on Bush and the reps. A good portion of it has come from drug laws that can be pretty scary. A bunch of those I think came in under clinton.
ALso you can not just blame the Patriot act on the Republicans, it was passed by the Dems as well, very few stood agaist it, and some of the Democrats here are going to say "but they could not stand agaist it cause they would be labeled terrorst sympothisers." Thats crap, if it was wrong, they should have stood up and said so, not mater what the consequences, not wanting to be labeled is poor excuse by the politians, and a dumn one to accept if you have a problem with the patriot act. I am a little unhappy about it, and hope at some point it goes away, but I doubt it will.
Sadly Politicians on boths sides are scum. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm all for settling differences lawfully and peacefully. Much like we did in Florida and the Supreme Court after the 2000 election. However, if a candidate had taken taken unlawful control of the election and influenced the Supreme Court to violate our Constitution I'd be demanding justice. If that failed then it'd be time for more forceful action.
If that decision had gone 5-4 the other way you would have joined an armed revolt?
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
If that decision had gone 5-4 the other way you would have joined an armed revolt?
If the Supreme Court had allowed Gore and his cronies to manipulate the ballots in his favor I might have lead the revolt.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If the Supreme Court had allowed Gore and his cronies to manipulate the ballots in his favor I might have lead the revolt.
terrorist!!!
-
I swore an oath long ago to defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. I'm certain that many American revolutionaries were labeled traitors by those loyal to the crown.
A well armed citizenry is far less likely to be oppressed by it's government.
Of course every citizen also has the right to defend himself from other citizens that would deprive him of life and/or property.
-
What if it was revealed that Bush rigged the election? Would you be in the streets then?
-
Originally posted by hawker238
What if it was revealed that Bush rigged the election? Would you be in the streets then?
If there were incontrovertible evidence of that then yes, I would do whatever necessary to have him ousted, wouldn't you?
-
I think he'd be impeached by Congress. That's the beauty of a democratic republic.
-
What if he was impeached by Congress but acquitted by the Senate?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What if he was impeached by Congress but acquitted by the Senate?
He'd be a democrat?
:D
-
Actually, I didn't speak to the voting process at all.
Originally posted by lazs2
It is not something that should be voted on as kanth intimates.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What if he was impeached by Congress but acquitted by the Senate?
Do you believe this is a possibility?
-
I'd like to think it's not and I'd like to trust my government. However, I demand that my government trust me, at least 'till I prove myself untrustworthy.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'd like to think it's not and I'd like to trust my government. However, I demand that my government trust me, at least 'till I prove myself untrustworthy.
What? That's ridiculous, you don't just give people the means and hope they'll do the right thing. I doubt anyone would argue "at least they trusted him" if a man killed 30 innocents at a shopping mall.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
What? That's ridiculous, you don't just give people the means and hope they'll do the right thing. I doubt anyone would argue "at least they trusted him" if a man killed 30 innocents at a shopping mall.
No, it's rediculous to think that people should have to prove themselves worthy before they're granted their rights.
Don't forget that the government draws its power from the people. It still does, right? America hasn't gone that far downhill yet.
If government draws its power from the people, then it follows that the people are the ones that grant the government its rights and priveleges... not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
No, it's rediculous to think that people should have to prove themselves worthy before they're granted their rights.
Don't forget that the government draws its power from the people. It still does, right? America hasn't gone that far downhill yet.
If government draws its power from the people, then it follows that the people are the ones that grant the government its rights and priveleges... not the other way around.
RIGHT ON!!
-
Originally posted by Torque
And i can remember when in history a democratic society ever elected a govn't which brought tyrany upon its own people.
I'm guessing that you meant to say "can't" not "can". If this is the case, try Hitler (just to begin with)
-
Of course every citizen also has the right to defend himself from other citizens that would deprive him of life and/or property.
This is half correct, anyway.
-
Originally posted by Steve
This is half correct, anyway.
Can I assume you are saying a person has no right to defend their property? They do in Texas, even the use of deadly force.
-
So, if you catch me stealing a bike from your front yard, you can shoot me?
-
Originally posted by Steve
So, if you catch me stealing a bike from your front yard, you can shoot me?
I hope so, and I should have every right. To you it might be just a bike. To me this bike was passed from my grandfather to my father, and now to me. Because of that it has certain centimental value to me, which can never be replaced. You may say that a bike is not worth a human life, but to me it may be worth 1000 lives. How can you dicate what a certain item means to me?
-
I hope so, and I should have every right. To you it might be just a bike. To me this bike was passed from my grandfather to my father, and now to me. Because of that it has certain centimental value to me, which can never be replaced. You may say that a bike is not worth a human life, but to me it may be worth 1000 lives. How can you dicate what a certain item means to me?
It could be worth 10 million dollars and be the bike that Jesus rode to the hill of his crucifiction. If I walk into your Texas yard at noon on a Sunday and steal that bike, you cannot shoot me(legally)
-
Originally posted by Steve
It could be worth 10 million dollars and be the bike that Jesus rode to the hill of his crucifiction. If I walk into your Texas yard at noon on a Sunday and steal that bike, you cannot shoot me(legally)
:rofl Thank you for the laugh. I so needed it at this hour at work.
I know that at least in Cali a person cannot use deadly force to protect property, which I think is BS, but that's how it is. I don't know about Texas.
-
Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
:rofl Thank you for the laugh. I so needed it at this hour at work.
I know that at least in Cali a person cannot use deadly force to protect property, which I think is BS, but that's how it is. I don't know about Texas.
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property and livestock ect:
-
In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property and livestock ect
This is not entirely correct.
-
Kanth... you said
"Also, in this age of technology we should have better representation for the people's will. "
I said that you intimated that we should be able to vote on rights such as this. I do not know any other way that we could remove the right to bear arms using the "peoples will" that does not entail voting (at least for representitives) but..
maybe you could explain what you meant? You did just claim that the constitution needs to be changed did you not? How would we change it?
messing with the constitution brings us such proggressive things as prohibition.
lazs
-
as for property... you should be able to protect it. you should do everything else possible tho before shooting someone over property.. You should be able to shoot a theif on your property if you feel threatened. You should be able to point a gun at someone stealing your property. He is in fact using force on you... you can respond with force.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Steve
This is not entirely correct.
It is correct in Texas.
If I have to shoot you to stop you from taking my property I am allowed by law to do so. Would I personally shoot someone over property, I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Steve
This is not entirely correct.
I asked a cop this very question.
And he said yup bust a cap in his arse but ya better be able to prove he was trying to steal your stuff.
-
maybe you did misunderstand me lazs.
they were two separate points.
My fear being that sometime in the future some group in power (judges, president, congress whoever) will decide to interpret the constitution and find that we never really did have that right.. and take it away, based on their lack of understanding of the wording used. Because our language is ever changing.
As far as our representation, I'd really like to keep a closer eye on whats going on without making a full time job of it, and I'd like technology to help me.
In both of these statements, I haven't said the constitution needs to be changed and I haven't touched on voting.
both items are basically my mistrust for the government and their powers to change my life over a loophole or to make decisions I'm not even aware of.
If you need further explanation let me know.
Originally posted by lazs2
Kanth... you said
"Also, in this age of technology we should have better representation for the people's will. "
I said that you intimated that we should be able to vote on rights such as this. I do not know any other way that we could remove the right to bear arms using the "peoples will" that does not entail voting (at least for representitives) but..
maybe you could explain what you meant? You did just claim that the constitution needs to be changed did you not? How would we change it?
messing with the constitution brings us such proggressive things as prohibition.
lazs
-
I believe I might kanth... In my opinion... the constitution should be interpreted in the context and language that it was written in. Case in point... as someone else pointed out "well regulated" meant, at the time of the writing, that something well regulated be functioning properly.
I still don't understand the part about the "peoples will" .... The constitution is there specificly to subvert the peoples will if needed... meaning, that rights are not a pervue of the peoples will.. We can't vote to send all black citizens back to africa for instance.
soo... what difference does technolodgy make in the constitution? I do agree with you tho that the government will try to find loopholes whenever they can... that is why we have a constitution. and why we need to keep it as it was written.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It is correct in Texas.
If I have to shoot you to stop you from taking my property I am allowed by law to do so. Would I personally shoot someone over property, I doubt it.
Iron, are you sure of that? If you are correct, then how are the limits defined? I mean can you shoot someone stealing old tennis shoes from your yard? Nah, I doubt it. OTOH, if a guy walks up to you and says "give me your Nikes or die" while brandishing a pistol, yeah, I'll wager you can kill him and be within the limits of the law.
I think Texas law (although I don't know) permits you to defend yourself. Defense of property can lead to deadly consequences.
curly
-
I asked a cop who came out to file a report on my car after someone tried to steal it.
I asked him what can I do If I catch him next time ?
He said SHOOT him.
I laughed and asked him If he was for real.
he looked at me like I was some kind of Idiot and said yes shoot him you are protecting what is yours.
Now this is at night I really dont know If that has anything to do with it or nor though.
-
OK guys. Here it is. Taken from Texas law - http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=QQJHCHSLQGJS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=125542&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=66&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
-
Yup SHOOT em
God bless Texas.
-
as ive said before i dont have anything against people owning guns...i just dont like em owning assault weapons
more killings are done with regular hunting guns and cheap pistol's than assault guns,, hands down,,real good assault guns are not cheap!!,,,i think the last fully auto killing in usa was done in the 1930's or 40's <~~somthing like that,,lol,,i notice alot of the antigun messages comes from people out of the usa,,which is no biggie,,but why are you so against us having guns when you dont even live here?
if people want to kill,,doesnt matter if they got a gun or not,,it will happen,,with cars,knifes,bats,poisions,and whatever they feal like to get the job done,,sad but true
im glad i got a little pistol to carry with me while im out walking my dogs threw the mountains,,ran into a lot of crap,,cougars,,rattle snakes,and just weird people who are out to do who knows what to you,,,im glad i got a firearm when im out there,,lol
-
Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
OK guys. Here it is. Taken from Texas law - http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=QQJHCHSLQGJS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=125542&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=66&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES
Whoa! So in other words, I can't shoot a little kid stealing from me, but a large, beligerant male can be plugged. :)
curly
-
Nah. The little kid you chase down and beat the crap out of. Then you shoot his large, beligerant dad when he comes over to kick your ass.
-
I asked a cop this very question.And he said yup bust a cap in his arse but ya better be able to prove he was trying to steal your stuff.
The cop is not entirely correct. You see, I did some research before I took up the argument. I made it clear I was stealing the bike from your front yard at NOON on Sunday.
-
Originally posted by Steve
The cop is not entirely correct. You see, I did some research before I took up the argument. I made it clear I was stealing the bike from your front yard at NOON on Sunday.
In that case it does look like you are right. The link I posted is expired, but you can go to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html and run a search for "deadly force property". I believe it's Penal Code chapter 9, paragraphs 41 and 42. You can only use deadly force at nighttime.
-
Sir Gecko, this is the same reference I used. nice work.
-
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
-
No way should you be able to shoot someone over property. If someone's life is endangered, only then should lethal force even be considered.
-
Ya gotta read between the lines.
It aint just night time you may take action.
It all depends on the actions of the bad guy.
And If I read It right you can even shoot him If he Is trying to get away after he commits a crime LOL.
Yep Us folks In Texas still have some rights .
God Bless Texas.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
No way should you be able to shoot someone over property. If someone's life is endangered, only then should lethal force even be considered.
Best way for someone not to get shot Is to not try and steal another mans stuff!
-
Best way to prevent citizens from killing each other is to take their guns.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Best way to prevent citizens from killing each other is to take their guns.
LOL no offense but you must be very young.
-
I am in fact quite young, and why would I take offense to it? Obviously, you will use it as some kind of annullment of my argument, which is just excellent reasoning.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Best way to prevent citizens from killing each other is to take their guns.
Wrong. If you take my gun, I'll knife you to death. If you take my knife, I'll fork you to death. If you take my fork, I'll spoon you to death. If you take my spoon, I will beat you with a baseball bat until you're dead. If you take my baseball bat, I will bash your head agaist the asphalt with my bare hands until you're dead. And if you take my arms off I will slowly chew through your throat until your head hangs by nothing but the spinal cord. Get the point?
The best way to prevent citizens from killing each other is to teach them from a very young age not to infringe on other people's rights. For as long as there will be citizens who infringe on other citizens rights, there will be citizens who will kill the infringers.
Edit: Nobody saw any typos, right? :D
-
You think its just as easy to kill a person with a gun as with your hands? You must be quite talented.
-
Originally posted by bullett308
Ya gotta read between the lines.
It aint just night time you may take action.
It all depends on the actions of the bad guy.
And If I read It right you can even shoot him If he Is trying to get away after he commits a crime LOL.
Yep Us folks In Texas still have some rights .
God Bless Texas.
Actually there is no need to read between the lines. It is quite clear. You can use deadly force to protect your property if, and all of these must be satisfied:
1. Section 9 Paragraph 41 justifies use of force.
2. You are using deadly force to prevent, or using it on a person that is fleeing right after commiting robbery, burglary, of theft at nighttime.
3. You believe that recovering your property without the use of deadly force will put your at risk of serious bodily harm or death.
While it's usually easy to satisfy # 1 and 3, #2 can only be satisfied at night. Unless there's another statue that overrides this, that is how I see it.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
You think its just as easy to kill a person with a gun as with your hands? You must be quite talented.
The ease of killing is not the point. The point was that taking away guns does not stop the killing. All you do by taking guns away is remove one method of killing. And there are still 9,231,539,297,567,2875,292,239.5 methods remaining. If you really want a projectile weapon you can use anything from a blow gun to a crossbow. Then of course you have knives, swords, sticks, poisons, etc.
And killing with a gun does take some amount of skill. You need to aim it, hold it steady, and pull the trigger. I learned that the first time I fired a gun, when I emptied the clip into everything but the large orange target 7 feet away I was trying to hit.
-
That's complete garbage. Those other examples are either complete BS or have a much lower lethality rate.
That's a worthless point anyways. My argument is that it is not justifiable to take another person's life over property.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
That's complete garbage. Those other examples are either complete BS or have a much lower lethality rate.
That's a worthless point anyways. My argument is that it is not justifiable to take another person's life over property.
Why not? You have no right to take my property without my permission. No matter how you twist it and turn it. What if an item you're trying to take has a great value to me that cannot be replaced? You have no right to dictate what value my property has to me.
-
You put some objects above a human life?
-
Depends on the human, there are worthless scum in the world. Have some steal from you, and see how you feel.
-
Yes. The watch that my grandfather gave me is one of those items. Even if someone was to get me an identical watch, it could NEVER replace a dying grandfathers gift.
And even if we're not talking centimental values. I worked hard for everything I have. Why should I let you walk out with it? Granted deadly force should be the last resort. But if it does come down to it, why should I give somebody the fruits of my labor for nothing?
-
Oh, do you not have police where you live?
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Oh, do you not have police where you live?
Police always arrives after the fact, to take a report. After my property is gone, probably never to be seen again. I have ful faith in the police when they are around. But unless there's a police guard stationed outside of my residence and one is assigned to escort me everywhere I go, I should have a right to protect myself and my property ... using deadly force if the occasion calls for it.
How old are you? Just out of curiosity? I'm 24.
-
I'm seventeen if it matters that much.
You can assist the police by getting down a description of the theif, liscense plates, etc. They will deal to him the justice warranted by his crime. I do not consider theft, petty or otherwise, a capital offence.
Is it offense or offence? I think I spelled it both ways.
-
Hawker,
In cali, at least in the big cities, Police will not even come out to you home if you had a burgerler and he is gone. He could have stolen everything you own and mostly they will not come.
They may if they are looking into catching a specific group.
Police are their for cleanup most and not crime prevention.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe I might kanth... In my opinion... the constitution should be interpreted in the context and language that it was written in. Case in point... as someone else pointed out "well regulated" meant, at the time of the writing, that something well regulated be functioning properly.
Exactly, and I'd like it to remain that way, but I don't trust that it will.
I still don't understand the part about the "peoples will" .... The constitution is there specificly to subvert the peoples will if needed... meaning, that rights are not a pervue of the peoples will.. We can't vote to send all black citizens back to africa for instance.
Right but at this point you are tying the two thoughts together, the second remark wasn't tied to the first, it was two thoughts in one post.
soo... what difference does technolodgy make in the constitution?
none that I can see.
I do agree with you tho that the government will try to find loopholes whenever they can... that is why we have a constitution. and why we need to keep it as it was written.
lazs
The second thought, the technology part, is that I'd like more info coming my way about what's on the table, what money will be spent how, what all is being included into new laws.. Without having to hunt and peck it all down..
What's on my representative's plate and what are they deciding on it and how will it affect me. I would like to be more informed without having to spend all day doing research.
This doesn't have anything to do with the first thought about the government finding loopholes, it has to do with me not liking being uninformed but not having the time to do all the research to fix that problem.
And watching the news isn't even close to the kind of pure local factual information that I'd like to see.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
I'm seventeen if it matters that much.
You can assist the police by getting down a description of the theif, liscense plates, etc. They will deal to him the justice warranted by his crime. I do not consider theft, petty or otherwise, a capital offence.
Is it offense or offence? I think I spelled it both ways.
It's offense :)
That still does not change the fact that my property is gone and may never be recovered.
And I need to correct you. They MIGHT deal him the justice that SOMEBODY ELSE thinks is warranted. SOMEBODY ELSE will dictate how much my property was worth to me. Big difference.
It sounds like you've been raised to have faith in the law and the police, and that's OK.
I've been mugged three times, my mom has been through it once, so has my sister, and in all the cases we lost some items. The police never found the bad guys. None of our items were ever returned. That was in San Francisco between 93 and 97.
So as a result I don't have faith in the police unless they are parked right next to me. I believe that the best defense for anybody is oneself (is this even a word :D).
-
Ya gotta read between the lines.
Uhhh, Gecko is right, this is law.. There is nothing between the lines...the laws are very specific. Shoot me at noon as I ride off on your kid's bike after stealing it from your front yard..... go to jail for shooting me. Done.
-
Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
I've been mugged three times, my mom has been through it once, so has my sister, and in all the cases we lost some items. The police never found the bad guys. None of our items were ever returned. That was in San Francisco between 93 and 97.
So as a result I don't have faith in the police unless they are parked right next to me. I believe that the best defense for anybody is oneself (is this even a word :D).
I guess I can understand where you're coming from. It still doesn't seem right, but a lot of things don't in the world.
Just aim for the knees or something. Have a heart.
I'm going to bed. Its now midnight and I've had a long day.
-
LOL If you dont kill them they will sue you.
And Steve we must have not read the same law as printed before us.
Trust me I live In Texas aand I have My CHP Concelled handgun permit so I had to learn a few things before they turned me lose with a loaded gun on the streets LOL.
Say A dude come up to me and pushes me off my bike and starts ridings away.
In Texas If I feel there is no other way of stoping him for taking my bike I may shoot him.
Now not to say his family may sue me in civil courte but as far as criminal not a chance.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Uhhh, Gecko is right, this is law.. There is nothing between the lines...the laws are very specific. Shoot me at noon as I ride off on your kid's bike after stealing it from your front yard..... go to jail for shooting me. Done.
It's really a common sense law. If you just broke into my car at night and are running off with my radio and refuse to stop can I legally shoot you? Yes. Will I? No. I'm not going to shoot anyone unless someone's life is in immediate danger.
Of course even if you shoot someone within the law, civil action can still be taken against you.
-
Now would I kill someone over a silly bicycle? I think not LOL.
I dont care how big a scum bag he might be.
I dont want his death hangin over me for the rest of my life over a bike.
I think I would have a tough time explaining that one to God.
Now If he assaulted me in the process and I felt like he was really gonna hurt me I would defend myself with whatever tools I might have including a gun.
Like Sam Colt said God made all men
I just made em equal:D
That brings up another point.
Say your just a normale guy .
5' 8" 165lbs with no fighting exp.
You and your girlfriend are walking along and this really big dude decides he wants your girlfriends booty.
Now what are you gonna do about it?
Get you head caved in more that likely.
But If you had a pistol you just became
able to defend yourself agaist a much tougher guy.
I know a silly example but really without the fear of jail wich most crooks laugh at these days what Is to stop someone from whoopin your butt?
But If all citizens (law abiding) had a pistol most If not all crooks might think twice about confronting you !
-
Just aim for the knees or something. Have a heart.
hawker im sure alot of people dont intend on killing the theif,i my self would never go for a killing blow,,unless i new it was me or him,,it is not just the fact your being robbed,,but if you catch them in the act,,,there is the chance he will attack or try to kill you so he dont get caught,,that is were a gun will make a diffrence,,you can tell him to leave,,or face the worst,,i would give them a choice before i had to pull the trigger<~~just because we own guns,,doesnt mean we are hartless
-
Originally posted by hawker238
I guess I can understand where you're coming from. It still doesn't seem right, but a lot of things don't in the world.
Just aim for the knees or something. Have a heart.
I'm going to bed. Its now midnight and I've had a long day.
Oh, I would aim for his knees. Right before I put a few in his chest. Wouldn't want him to have a painless death now, woud I? :lol
I was raised to value human life over property. But when I got mugged for my bike, "it's just a bike, there is always another" quickly became "that's my bike that took me six month of McDonald's pay to save up for". Some perspectives kinda change when crap happens.
Still, I wouldn't shoot to kill. Actually I'd prefer not to shoot at all. If the threat of deadly force is enough to end it, so be it. I don't carry. I plan on carrying in the future. Better be prepared for the day that I hope doesn't arrive, than to have that day catch me by surprise.
Sleep tight ... see ya back on tomorrow :)
-
Trust me I live In Texas
Well go ahead, shoot someone then. Maybe you can go to a Texas prison so you will still live there.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
?
I'll assume you're asking for examples. Chechnya. Vietnam (US). Vietnam (France). Chinese Cultural Revolution. Russian Revolution. I hope Iraq isn't shaping up to be one.
And "lost" isn't the right word... the advantage of guerilla warfare is that it doesn't have to "win," because as long as it is fighting the organized army is losing its soldiers and its will to fight. Guerilla armies don't have to "win," they just have to outlast their occupiers.
Are you just being difficult, or can you really not see that the possability exists?
You forgot one, the US Revolution in where this very thing happened. The "winners" are the ones who wanted to keep thier arms in case they needed to change the goverment again.
-
hawker.. some people in this country are of a weaker gender or old or infirm or.... just weaker than 1-12 or so criminals all at once.
Firearms equalize this inequity of strength... this is not conjecture this is fact born out by FBI stats that say that crimes are prevented by firearms at between 1.5 and 3 million times a year. this is very good odds... perhaps you should read John Lotts book "more guns less crime" and get back to us when you are armed with some facts. other than "if you take away the guns then people won't shoot each other" which is maybe logical but a meaningless observation.
If you take away guns more people will be killed and victimized.
kanth... boy did I missunderstand you... It appears that we agree.. even to the point of the news media.. I watch no news and read no newspapers. I do research when I can.. staying current is not hard as the headlines still attack us from every source. I too wish that we were more involved in the lawmaking process so long as rights were not legeslated.
When I end womens suffarage I will let you have sandmans vote.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
When I end womens suffarage I will let you have sandmans vote.
lazs
LOL
You come up with some real zingers lazs :aok
-
Laz, that's shooting in defense of yourself or another person. I have no objections to that. Shooting a man who grabbed your wallet is another matter.
-
depends... If he is attacking me to get my wallet that is one thing... I would even go so far as to say that I wouldn't give up my wallet voluntarily. If he is willing to face a firearm to steal then he is probably rabid and needs to be put down... just as a burglar hitting a home in the daytime is... sorta like seeing a raccoon in the daytime raiding your garbage can... best to not take chances.
Why is someone stealing from you? Is this someone we want running around free? What if he kills or severly injures the next person he robs? How would you feel then?
lazs
-
What if he is stealing to feed himself or others? And who are you to just pass judgement on a human life like that?
-
I make no judgments other than threat evaluations. If he is stealing to feed his family (is there even one recorded case of this ever happening in modern U.S. history) then he will certainly not attack me. If he does his motives do not play into it. If I resist he will leave if he is simply trying to "feed his family"
crooks aren't crooks to "feed their family" they are crooks to feed their habits without working.
Even so... each case is different. I would react as to how much I felt threatened. It is not I that has put the guy in danger it is he. If it is understood that I have the right to shoot him then he is risking his life for a few dollars... it stands to reason that he holds very little value on life and is to be feared.
lazs
-
Originally posted by hawker238
What if he is stealing to feed himself or others? And who are you to just pass judgement on a human life like that?
LOLOLOLOL.... I'm trying to remember the last time I heard of a pair of thugs kicking in the front door of an elderly widow because they wanted a cheeseburger.....
I do remember when thieves forced their way into the house of WWII ace and retired Marine General Marion Carl and bludgened the elderly man to death. They weren't doing it to feed their starving invalid mothers.
My regards,
Widewing
-
If you were stealing to feed your family would you not simply grab a big ol ham or something at the local supermarket and run like hell?
lazs
-
No, then I'd be summarily shot.
I must also say I find it amusing you are so intent on changing my opinion on the value of human life.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
No, then I'd be summarily shot.
You might if you were in Texas. Yeeeehaaaaaw!
-
I have no idea of what your opinion is on the value of human life. I place it pretty high... I also prioritize human life... mine and my families is worth much more than someone elses... the inocents is worth more than the guilties.
How do you tulips value?
lazs
-
I knew you couldn't resist. Sandman must have really pissed in your cornflakes in order to be below the voting status of a woman.
Originally posted by lazs2
When I end womens suffarage I will let you have sandmans vote.
lazs
-
Like he needs encouraging :p
Originally posted by AKIron
LOL
You come up with some real zingers lazs :aok
-
Don't know if this has been stated but do any of you think that after fighting the British in a bloody revolution they would then ban guns to the people who just fought to over throw the government. the entire constitution was/is writing to limit governments powers not the people.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Don't know if this has been stated but do any of you think that after fighting the British in a bloody revolution they would then ban guns to the people who just fought to over throw the government. the entire constitution was/is writing to limit governments powers not the people.
Actually, I believe the constitution gives the government powers. Yeah.....
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Actually, I believe the constitution gives the government powers. Yeah.....
It Limits the power of government.
-
No, the Constitution creates and divides the powers amongst the three branches of government. The Bill of Rights limits their power.
-
You say tomato...
lazs
-
Do you really say tomaahto Lazs? ;)
-
No... I say the constitution limits governments powers.
lazs
-
Ya had me worried there. Was afraid you might not know which end of the gun to point away. Of course if you own more than 2 guns you'll need to pronounce it tomater. ;)
-
Just talked to the local range where I've been practicin' lately about getting a Makarov. The guy tells me they have some on order and I can buy a new one from them for $159. He told me that ammo for them runs $14-$20/50 rnds compared to $8 for standard 9mm. I may pass on it for that reason.
I wanna get a Glock next but haven't decided on the caliber.
-
barnaul 95 grain hollow points are $100 a thousand as are wolf 108 grainers... that is $5 a box I bought 3,000 rounds. the worst price I have seen is about $10 for brass cased boxer primed (reloadable).
Shot bout 200 rounds through mine of mixed hp and fmj... very accurate and not a single hint of a malfunction.
lazs