Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[Rich46yo]

Crime exists because we allow it to. I can write pages on how and why we allow it but whats the point?

You cant compare Europe to here. European countries have history's where Monarchies held all the power and the lower classes were forbidden any weapons. They dont have a recent history of wilderness expansion that we do. They have a far more homogeneous populations. Have far less, if any, immigration. They have almost no illegal aliens and their populations are far more documented. The powers of their police forces are not as limited as they are here. A German cp stops you and asks for ID and see what squealing about rights will get you.

They have hunting and sport shooting but its mostly for the rich. Here its everymans sport.

100 years ago we had far, far more guns per capita in America then we have now. You could buy a Tommie gun thru a magazine add. So whats changed between then and now and you have your answer.

[VonMessa]

thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.

I apologize if I wasn't succinct enough.  I didn't mean that statement to be indicative of the constitution being a static device of law.  I meant it to state that infringing upon the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights and this includes all of them.  As a quick analogy: Black coffee is black until cream is added.  Even adding a minuscule amount of cream added changes that.   If someone says to me "You can possess black coffee, but only if we add a tiny bit of cream", I would feel compelled to think that I really cannot posses black coffee, but the next closest thing to it.

any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.

I recall the Afghan's giving the Soviet Army a good dose of heartburn, without access to half the firepower (including "donations" to them by foreign governments) For any government to enforce it's leadership, in a manner conflicting with the will of the citizens, it would require boots on the ground at some point.  If the citizens are well armed, it makes the occupation by invading forces that much more difficult.  Even with the use of more advanced weaponry ,the hope of their way of life remaining the same is bolstered by the fact that they have access to a means of defending  themselves  

gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?

Of course not, but improvised devices to mimic the weapons you have mentioned will still be around.  Humans are a resourceful lot. As many have stated, it is more of a matter of people being the problem.

[RTHolmes]

Crime exists because we allow it to. I can write pages on how and why we allow it but whats the point?

You cant compare Europe to here. European countries have history's where Monarchies held all the power and the lower classes were forbidden any weapons. They dont have a recent history of wilderness expansion that we do. They have a far more homogeneous populations. Have far less, if any, immigration. They have almost no illegal aliens and their populations are far more documented. The powers of their police forces are not as limited as they are here. A German cp stops you and asks for ID and see what squealing about rights will get you.

They have hunting and sport shooting but its mostly for the rich. Here its everymans sport.

100 years ago we had far, far more guns per capita in America then we have now. You could buy a Tommie gun thru a magazine add. So whats changed between then and now and you have your answer.

this bolded part is just factually wrong

[Widewing]

thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.

any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.

gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?

The Constitution isn't written in stone? I'd say it is. Try changing it... The amendments to the Constitution have been minimal considering the 220+ years since its adoption.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't bestow any rights. It recognized an existing right and is the written promise to protect and preserve that right.

[TonyJoey]

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.  

[Babalonian]

I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker

Ah, so then they've all already previously told you this for themelves then, that there is no legal gun ownership in Mexico?   

[guncrasher]

I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker

here shuffler, have google translate or perhaps ask your 3 friends from mexico to translate from you.  it is from the mexican constitution and tells you which arms you are legally allowed or not for private ownership.

hope this puts to rest the lies spread by some that guns are illegal in mexico.

http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/102.pdf

semp

[Melvin]

They got boatloads of guns down in Old Mexico. Just ask Eric Holder.

 

[VonMessa]

They got boatloads of guns down in Old Mexico. Just ask Eric Holder.

 

 

[VonMessa]

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.  

If you want to debate, you gotta throw a bone here and cite an example


EDIT:

It took almost 46 years after the 2nd amendment was ratified until the 1st attempt at a firearm law was put forth.

2nd amendment ratified in 1791

1837 The state of Georgia tried to pass a ban on handguns.  It was found to be unconstitutional and thrown out.

[guncrasher]

They got boatloads of guns down in Old Mexico. Just ask Eric Holder.

 

you act like it's the first time we ever did that.  remember when we allowed arms to be sold to Iran despite us having an arms embargo  .


semp

[Melvin]

you act like it's the first time we ever did that.  remember when we allowed arms to be sold to Iran despite us having an arms embargo   .


semp

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.

 

[TonyJoey]

If you want to debate, you gotta throw a bone here and cite an example

Firearms are not the only thing contained in the word arms. Watch that interview I posted, he mentions a couple, including an "afrighting" law, which prohibited people from openly carrying "scary" weapons, such as a headaxe. The 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, just as freedom of speech is not either, i.e. laws against yelling fire in a movie theatre don't violate the First Amendment.

[VonMessa]

Firearms are not the only thing contained in the word arms. Watch that interview I posted, he mentions a couple, including an "afrighting" law, which prohibited people from openly carrying "scary" weapons, such as a headaxe. The 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, just as freedom of speech is not either, i.e. laws against yelling fire in a movie theatre don't violate the First Amendment.

A head axe has an obvious purpose...

A little common sense goes a long way.

[Melvin]

2nd Amendment is not unlimited

This is true, which is why one must jump through major hoops in order to own full auto or heavy caliber weapons.

And that's fine with me, just keep your mitts off of my high cap mags.