Firearms

[NoraBrimstone]

That's scary to know, thanks. Glad I don't drive if that's the case.

[thesummerqueen]

"Accidental" gets to be ambivalent. I was pulling out of a Cracker Barrel parking space (don't judge me, I live in the South) and I FUCKING CHECKED BEHIND ME, and all of a sudden I was backed into a minivan, who had also been backing out.

I had just bought my Scion, and it was only a scratch, but whose fault was it? She said mine. I goddamn checked - I say it was hers. Do we both get punished? I had a scratched fender - she just had to pop some plastic back in place.

[The Grand Nudger]

I won't judge you, it's not like you were pulling out of applebees or something.

[thesummerqueen]

God, never an applebees. Not unless I was on acid and totally confused.

[Shell B]

One might aswell argue for the constitutionaly provided right to own slaves - which YES was included in the original document.

You are beyond wrong. Slavery is not even mentioned until the amendment that freed the slaves. I'm sorely tempted to call you a retard because of the vehemence with which you just delivered that lie. Read the fucking thing. It's hardly a few pages.

[Tiberius]

I don't think civilians need to own AK-47s period. What are they going to do with it? Go hunt? With a weapon specifically designed for combat use? To collect? Find something better to collect.

Tell that to the participants in the Arab Spring...

What are civilians going to do with an AK-47? Defend themselves against oppressive governments, that's what. Governments have access to guns; far more deadly that anything you can legally buy, even now. If they have access to guns, so should the people.

[The Grand Nudger]

AK is a great rifle for hunting a big predator. It's got range and tremendous knockdown - plus, the rounds are cheap..which is important if you're a frequent shooter and/or bad shot. So you don't have to get close to the fucking bear - and it won't be getting back up to maul your face for trying to kill it with your pathetic little bangstick. I prefer an sks for my 7.62, but that's just an issue of whether somebody likes ketchup or tomatos on their burger.

Just sayin......

oh, almost forgot - it has great pen too, which is key, because with most rounds you have to choose between knockdown and penetration, 7.62 delivers both, so any rifle that can chamber it is going to be a pretty choice hunting rifle.

[Foxaèr]

What are civilians going to do with an AK-47? Defend themselves against oppressive governments, that's what.

The common person who thinks that even that weapon, or a few guns, is going to protect him from a government that has an army at its call, is plain nuts. All that the government has to do is send a battalion of troops or a drone to that person's house, and it is adios.

We are not living in a French Revolution period where the people can be equally matched with the government in terms of firepower. The government will win, if it decides to turn against the people in that way.

[Something completely different]

You are beyond wrong. Slavery is not even mentioned until the amendment that freed the slaves. I'm sorely tempted to call you a retard because of the vehemence with which you just delivered that lie. Read the fucking thing. It's hardly a few pages.

what the?!!!

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. It states:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. . ."

It was clear after the revolution that the document wouldnt be signed if it explicitly was against slavery or permitted it. So the writers of the constitution simply put in a clause which determined that the issue should be resolved 20 years later. What the document did explicitly say thereby was that slavery shouldnt be abolished until 1808.

Also:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due . . .

Your constitution underlines in it`s original form, that a slave escaping his master has to be returned.

And yes! The term "slave" or "slavery" is never used! Because instead of these terms the euphemisms "person" and "ownership" are used!

How naive are you?!

My argument still stands even if you would have proven me wrong!
What was law or right 200 years ago, is certainly not right today!


So you are the one who is eigther lieing or being ignorant here!

---

source:


http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/ps/10199.html

[The Grand Nudger]

RE: the military's ability to win against it's own populace

I think that if you perused the armies own literature on the subject, the conclusion you'd find would be eye opening. This was my job, 5-5, as it were, for years. Explaining, (more accurately stressing repeatedly)- to trained soldiers- how low their chances of survival were when confronting armed combatants (read civilians who happened to have a gun) in their own homes- and trying to teach them ways to increase their odds of survival in the most meager of increments (with mostly low amounts of success - soldiers don't actually listen or follow instructions that well..lol).

Here in the US - the military actually depends upon civilians for a vast array of vital services - up to and including the manufacture, upkeep, and transportation of their weapons (lets not even talk about how much an army eats). How they'd manage to be a capable fighting force without that support is a mystery.