oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:02 am
blatham wrote:
You'd better inform the folks of Britain and Australia. Apparently, they consider themselves to be quite free.


It's come up before. Smile



blatham wrote:
Of course, we all may misperceive such matters. Which brings us to the notion of what might appall them about America and the ways in which Americans are not free which they have no inkling of. Are you prepared to direct your thoughts down that path?


I can go there if you like. However, I am likely to disagree with any notion of freedom that does not put "ownership of automatic rifles" foremost in the list of freedoms.



blatham wrote:
But you have a standing army and a military industrial complex that will not allow any other eventuality than active militarization. So how does the original idea apply?


The original idea would require us to have something like the Swiss Militia. We could still have the standing army as well, so long as the militia existed alongside it.

(Note: The Constitution forbids using the militia for any purposes other than repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law, so there would be no overseas deployment of the militia.)



blatham wrote:
I can understand the attraction of weapons. But necessary in the senses you suggest? That is a uniquely American notion. And it ain't all Americans who believe it so.


I am not suggesting that they are necessary. I am saying that free people may choose to have weapons regardless of their necessity.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:03 am
Would someone please tell cjsha that no one is going to take his guns.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:09 am
blatham wrote:
To the point in question...
Quote:
U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower

By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A15

Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place....

Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.

"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.

"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html



A free press is important. However, I think the right to have automatic weapons is more important.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:15 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Would someone please tell cjsha that no one is going to take his guns.


Both Nancy Pelosi and the UN want to take away everyone's assault weapons.

I'd like to be able to tell cjsha that the NRA will successfully defend our Constitution from Nancy Pelosi and the UN. However, I cannot see into the future to know they'll be successful.

These are trying days for American freedom.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:30 am
oralloy wrote:
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Would someone please tell cjsha that no one is going to take his guns.


Both Nancy Pelosi and the UN want to take away everyone's assault weapons.

I'd like to be able to tell cjsha that the NRA will successfully defend our Constitution from Nancy Pelosi and the UN. However, I cannot see into the future to know they'll be successful.

These are trying days for American freedom.


Ok - I'll bite. Can you tell me - specifically, not in some flowery rhetoric about some potential slippery slope - why do you need assault weapons?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 06:40 am
Because my Browning shotgun is an assualt weapon by Pelosi's and other gun grabber's definitions.

Been to a Gander Mountain or Cabela's lately? Seen the cool stuff you can buy?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 07:04 am
cjhsa wrote:
Because my Browning shotgun is an assualt weapon by Pelosi's and other gun grabber's definitions.

Been to a Gander Mountain or Cabela's lately? Seen the cool stuff you can buy?

Why is your Browning shotgun an assualt weapon? What model is it?

Did you cut the stock off or something? Because nothing in the present Browning catalogue would be classified as an assault rifle.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 07:06 am
I just bought a little Mossberg shotgun - youth model, so tiny, short stock holds five shells.

My Browning is a 6-shot semi-auto.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 07:33 am
Being a 6 shot semi auto doesn't qualify it as an assault weapon.

In fact nothing you have said even counts as one of the 2 features required to make it an assault weapon.

What model is it?
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 07:37 am
Don't interrupt the paranoia with facts, please.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 07:56 am
http://www.gunaccessories.com/TacticalShotgun/riot.jpg


This weapon only meets 2 of the requirements for making it an assault weapon.


(I hope cj doesn't have a stroke when viewing this picture.)



However this weapon does presently require a federal permit to own.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 07:59 am
He may be stroking, but I don't think in a way you mean.

Anyway, clearly a weapon made for duck hunting...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 07:59 am
It doesn't matter. To the unknowledgeable semi-auto and auto and assault are all the same thing. It the intent of Pelosi and others like her to take these issues to the polls where unknowledgeable voters, the same ones who voted for them, get to make the decision. They are doing the same thing here in Michigan with the dove hunt issue. Of couse the bleeding hearts are going to win - that's what they're counting on.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:03 am
So, this is another case-- as with the purported UN gun confiscation you were all in a tizzy about-- where potential has become reality for you?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:06 am
Have you ever heard of potential energy?
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:07 am
Have you ever heard of paranoid fantasy?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:14 am
I think we should outlaw furnaces, hammers and anvils. They are dangerous to other metals.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:16 am
Is the UN going to take those away too?!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:26 am
snood wrote:
oralloy wrote:
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Would someone please tell cjsha that no one is going to take his guns.


Both Nancy Pelosi and the UN want to take away everyone's assault weapons.

I'd like to be able to tell cjsha that the NRA will successfully defend our Constitution from Nancy Pelosi and the UN. However, I cannot see into the future to know they'll be successful.

These are trying days for American freedom.


Ok - I'll bite. Can you tell me - specifically, not in some flowery rhetoric about some potential slippery slope - why do you need assault weapons?


What does "need" have to do with anything?

This is America. We don't have to "demonstrate a need" before we exercise our civil rights.


Now, I can tell you some things that free people use assault weapons for, if that helps:

Hunting
Self-defense
Target shooting
Nice addition to their gun collection
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2006 08:30 am
parados wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Because my Browning shotgun is an assualt weapon by Pelosi's and other gun grabber's definitions.

Been to a Gander Mountain or Cabela's lately? Seen the cool stuff you can buy?

Why is your Browning shotgun an assualt weapon? What model is it?

Did you cut the stock off or something? Because nothing in the present Browning catalogue would be classified as an assault rifle.


Keep in mind that the freedom haters will keep expanding the definition of assault weapons, each time claiming that any guns new to the assault weapon definition are "a loophole that needs to be closed".

If it isn't called an assault weapon now, it will be called one by the time the freedom haters have set their sights on it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 10:22:03