|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 347
Location: United States
|
Buc, where did you see this article about Mark E. Kelly? I haven't seen anything about it one way or the other in any news source. I happen to get most of my news from Colorado Springs news sources and Colorado Springs is a very conservative community.
|
|
 
Rank: Story Verifier
Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,165
|
Buz wrote:
Me too! I'd love to have an Abrams tank, but damn the gas would cost a fortune. I have shot legal fully automatic machine guns at gun ranges before. Quite a rush. (Gun ranges often have a license to own them and charge patrons to shoot them.) I'd love to shoot a cannon if the opportunity ever avails itself.
I qualified on the .30 cal machine gun when I was in the Navy. Does that count? As to cannon - meh. Now a Whitworth breech-loading rifled field piece, that would be something to mess about with. (I understand the ballistics aren't quite as good as a 3"-50 caliber gun, but still ...)
"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
|
|
Rank: Active Ink Slinger
Joined: 11/20/2012
Posts: 39
Location: Italy
|
CleverFox wrote:The town of Byron Maine is voting on whether each household should be required to own a firearm and ammunition. This law would be unenforceable because Maine law bars municipalities from legislating on firearms.
If we have the freedom to bare arms in the United States that means we also have the freedom not to bare arms if we so choose. People should not be forced to have guns anymore than the people should have their guns taken from them.
This strikes me as a big government intrusion. I'm sorry, you don't have the right to "bare" arms, you are COMPELLED to bare arms unless you have a concealed gun permit. Maybe you meant... "bear arms" ? That right comes only if you can prove you can spell... sorry, try again next time... PS Byron, Maine is NOT Government; the Governor of Maine is "government", as are Congress and the POTUS; but the local Mayor is just that, the local Mayor.
|
|
Rank: Constant Gardener
Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 9,490
Location: Cakeland, United States
|
MrNudiePants wrote:I want an Abrams tank! When the fuck's the next gun show coming to town? Buz wrote:Me too! I'd love to have an Abrams tank, but damn the gas would cost a fortune. You'll both be fuckered when I zap ya with week old, 5000mph breakfast burritos  
 The best thing you can do for your fellow,
next to rousing his conscience, is - not to give him things
to think about, but to wake things up that are in him...
to make him think things for himself - George MacDonald
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 347
Location: United States
|
lambdavi wrote:
I'm sorry, you don't have the right to "bare" arms, you are COMPELLED to bare arms unless you have a concealed gun permit.
Maybe you meant... "bear arms" ? That right comes only if you can prove you can spell... sorry, try again next time...
PS Byron, Maine is NOT Government; the Governor of Maine is "government", as are Congress and the POTUS; but the local Mayor is just that, the local Mayor.
Sorry about my spelling error but the town council which is the legislative body that makes laws and therefore is part of the government and was voting to require each household to have a firearm and ammunition in the household. That town council is the legislature for that town but subservient to the Maine state legislature and subservient to the Federal legislature. That is Government.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 3/4/2011
Posts: 318
Location: Sitting in Heaven watching you, United States
|
I think everybody needs to go back and read the Second Amendment again. Its purpose was because of the British taking the guns from the Colonist before the Revolution
VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: -20
|
Its alleged purpose (and I've read several others) isn't written in the Constitution.
|
|
Rank: Story Verifier
Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,165
|
"Its alleged purpose (and I've read several others) isn't written in the Constitution."
I disagree. The purpose is stated in the first two phrases:
"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."
That this can be read as to mean that each individual is expected to be a part of that militia or that the militia can only be regulated if the people have the means whereby to defend themselves against said militia (to regulate it) makes no difference, though many arguing on either side of the question would have us believe it does, for the sake of strengthening their argument.
"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 838
Location: The Sprawl, United States
|
It can be said the amendment only applied to militias until a few years ago when the supreme court ruled it also applies to the individual. You can also read it as to say the militia acts as the peoples right to bear arms, therefore the militia (the peoples right) shan't be infringed as it necessary for their security.
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 8/16/2008
Posts: 2,259
Location: Between time and Timbuktu, Djibouti
|
I just stumbled upon this thread.
These are some of the funniest posts I've ever read - LadyX and Sprite, you're priceless!
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 10/10/2012
Posts: 481
|
Militia, militia, malitia. Blah, blah, blah. I guess timing, and color are everything.
"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." --Wilde
|
|
Rank: Brawling Berserker
Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,319
Location: Not on your radar, Norway
|
MrNudiePants wrote:I want an Abrams tank! When the fuck's the next gun show coming to town? Screw the Abrams tank. Get a British Challenger II or a Leopard II. The British Challenger II had a better kill to death ratio against other tanks in Iraq than the Abrams and the Leopard II simply because the Germans make it. No offence to American quality, but Germans are far superior when it comes to producing reliable mechanical equipment.
An entry for the humour competition! I has it!
Now you can read stuff that's like.. all funny and hillarious and amusing!Choking the Blue Snake!!
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 10/14/2010
Posts: 681
Location: JUST A CLICK AWAY, United States
|
Buz ; that's a lot to Ban! Why not try my generations way? .." MAKE LOVE NOT WAR".....BAN THE BRA! (-:
ELITFROMNORTH; Screw the Abrams tank. Get a British Challenger II or a Leopard II. The British Challenger II had a better kill to death ratio against other tanks in Iraq than the Abrams and the Leopard II simply because the Germans make it. No offense to American quality, but Germans are far superior when it comes to producing reliable equipment. equipment. YES, but they discontinued, mass production of their TIGER TANKS, To many unemployed Americans , stealing metal, so they can sell it for scrap iron. )-:
|
|
|
Guest |