The second amendment

Obviously Joe from Chi-town has never been hunting. Ban semi-autos? For what reason? That is an absurd statement even coming from as far left as Joe.

People drown every day. I think we should ban water.

Then I was confused by
what does this mean ?

What it means is that if there was only one "legal" murder as you claim this is the predictable result of the fact that most full auto weapons are illegal.

Similar to how all murders are illegal. The very definition of the act is what the stat would describe and not some societal tendency.

For example, if one were to outlaw almost all the aspirin pills you could immediately claim that very little legal aspirin is used.

It's a stat that describes the legality and not much else.

It helps to illustrate that some one that is willing to go through all the trouble and expense of getting a full-auto legally, is unlikely to use it in a crime.
There is no “legal murder”, it was a full-auto, in a cop’s hand, when the only murder was commuted with a legal full auto.

emclean,

Do you think it's possible that it might just illustrate that there are very few legal full autos out there?

fishin' quoted a figure of about 1500 and said it includes museums and such. I didn't check it but fishin's figures are usually correct.

So what I'm saying is that the "one murder" statistic might simply be a result of said restrictions, just like there's no "legal muder" simply on the basis of muder being illegal by its nature.

Do you have any idea of the number of legally owned handguns used in murders? Of the number of longarms? I do not know.

I do know the number of full-autos used for murder. The statistic was in response to joefromchicago's statement.

This is my shotgun. Joe would make this illegal (because it's a semo-auto). This design has been around for 100 years.

Nemind emclean. The point I was trying to make was about logic and not necessarily about guns. I'll not press it further.

joe would simi-auto also include any repeating arm? or just those that rechamber a round with out help?

Test:

Hi There!

I was sent a link over on another message board, it said to come and speak for the 2nd Amendment, being a firm believer in rights and freedom I followed the link here, when I got here I saw what appeared to be a poll, I would have voted in this poll not only did I not see a place to vote but I fond myself confused and without a vote choice, I mean that I did not see a ?'vote' that conveyed my feeling on this most important issue, and this is a subject I have spent many hours studying and debating. Please allow me to explain my confusion and leave with a few remarks.

The Answers/Choices/Votes That I Saw:

"Is out dated due to the National Guard, and only they need guns.

Is out dated, but it is ok for some people muskets for personal use.

Is an individual right to keep there guns, but there need to be a lot restrictions.

Is an individual right and we have the right amount of restrictions now. "


Here's my problem and disagreement with the above. The Second Amendment is a guarantee of an Undeniable God Given Right, it grants us nothing but the non-interference of this Right. Therefore none the above choices left me with a vote.

We already have over 22,000 gun laws that have not helped stop to stop crime and save lives one bit and the government itself has backed this up, as well as many others researchers, you can't stop ignorance and or criminals with regulation, legislation and laws forbidding gun ownership and the right to carry. However, it has been proven, and once again even by our own government that gun ownership and the right carry them is one of the few things that can reduce crime and save lives. Everybody can argue all they want, but a fact is a fact and all the argument, debate and restrictions in the world is not going to change the fact that guns and the right to carry them have reduced crime and has not increased it at all.

IMHO, Education & Prosecution is the answer:

Prosecution of criminals who use guns in crimes will also go a long way in stopping gun crimes, everybody likes to scream about the crime but nobody's wants to give them the time, quit bitching and jail these people with full sentences, they commit most of the crimes, it's not target shooting Joe down the block. If these idiots know they will get full time served sentences for carrying and using guns they go back to sticks, bars and fists and brass knuckles, that's right, the criminal will steal be the criminals, but he won't be packing a gun if it means shacking up with bubba for a long time.

In thinking about these matters we need to remove the often-misleading press stories that pray upon our compassion and concentrate on the Truth, and use plenty of Reason & Logic. After all, country folk raised with guns don't have the gun problems the big city folks do, fact of the matter is most inner city kids only see guns in a improper way, that's why they go around holding them sideways. In this matter we need to both Preach and Teach, and when that don't work we need to punish them and not kick them back out and let them do it again.

Ignorance of guns and their use only propagates further ignorance allowing accident that could be prevented as well teaches the idiots that are going to use guns anyway to hit what they are shooting at and not spraying the neighborhood as they do now. Ignorance also creates mystique and intrigue that proper familiarly removes.

Best wishes to you all for peace success.

"Liberty Means Responsibility. That Is Why Most Men Dread It" ~ George Bernard Shaw


Onebgg

You are the first to call me on that; I managed to loose the last option
I wanted to list "the 2nd means what is written"

Thanks & Good Luck Here!

States do it all the time. That's what states do.


We don't get too many "MIGs" flying around here. You must mean "Meigs" Field.


Nope. But if I were interested in learning more about it, I know who I'd contact.


A semiautomatic weapon is one that uses the energy from firing to eject the empty case and load the next cartridge.

Quite right. It's not that I have any philosophical or moral objections to killing God's creatures; indeed, I am all in favor of killing more of the tastier members of the animal kingdom. No, it's just that I hate being outdoors. If God had intended man to spend all day out in the wilderness, stalking and killing prey, He wouldn't have invented HVAC systems and pizza delivery.


I didn't know I was located on the far left.


It'll never happen. Too many Republicans own water-bottling companies.


Sadly, yes, cjhsa, you will have to give up your beloved shotgun. And I would consider it an honor, as well as a pleasure, to pry it from your cold, dead hands.

Emclean - you can fix that.

Go to your first post - click edit.

This will take you into where you can change the poll - (actually, this may not work now, but it is worth a try).

If it does, replace the option you wished to have, then submit the OPTION, not the whole post. Then submit the whole post.

It may not work, cos I think changing polls might no longer be possible.


May I add that your last option, as you state it here, would, I believe, be illogical, since it begs the entire question!!!

Also, I believe you mentioned something about gun control advocates and flag burning early inthe thread?

What has one to do with the other, or do you believe they are on the same gene?

Oops - beg your pardon - about the question begging - I thought you were asking a different question.

There are no choices for those who think that there should be fewer restrictions, or that the government should not infringe on anyone's right to keep and bear whatever arms they deem necessary to preserve and defend their security and freedom.

so you would be ok with it, spelling Mistakes not withstanding.



YOUR state Constution.


can you explain why my semi-automatic .22 is more dangerous than a 12Ga shotgun that will fire as fart as I pump?

I know I made a mistake when I set up this poll; it was not till yesterday anyone called me on it.