Are you in favor of private firearms ownership?

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Quote

....
You accused him of making his first post since joining the site a weapon question. That's untrue. If you go to his profile, and click "show User's Posts", you'll clearly see that his first post was in an Obama thread. So you're wrong.
....

JohnRich, my dear, I did not. Usually, when replying to a thread, I MEAN THE ACTUAL THREAD. Like everybody does.

I do not refer to the post anyone made with his very *first post since joining the site* ....

Man, you really must be lost. Sorry dude, you're not half as smart as you think you are.... bwahahahaahaha ....

Ok, so now I'm really confused. You said:

Quote

You entered this site just few days ago.

Why did you start with a weapon question?

Isn't it a skydiving site, first of all?

So you referred to him as just joining the site and his first post. You certainly implied that this was his first post on the site, intentionally or not.

So, now you say you're referring to the thread in particular. Ok, so apparently you wanted him to start a thread in Speakers Corner, in which he wanted to poll opinions about weapons, with a skydiving-related question? What in the world was your point? If this wasn't his first post on the site, which I think we've established, then how many skydiving related posts should he make before he can start a thread about guns in Speakers Corner? or Obama? or whatever in the appropriate forum?......and.......why do you care?

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

To: christelsabine
So you referred to him as just joining the site and his first post. You certainly implied that this was his first post on the site, intentionally or not.

So, now you say you're referring to the thread in particular. Ok, so apparently you wanted him to start a thread in Speakers Corner, in which he wanted to poll opinions about weapons, with a skydiving-related question? What in the world was your point? If this wasn't his first post on the site, which I think we've established, then how many skydiving related posts should he make before he can start a thread about guns in Speakers Corner? or Obama? or whatever in the appropriate forum?......and.......why do you care?

Thank you for "getting it". And welcome to the illogic of christalsabine.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

If you oppose those types of firearms, you shouldn't be afraid to say so, along with your reasoning for your opposition. But you seem to prefer to remain ambiguous, so that you don't have to justify your position. And maybe that's because you can't? It's so much easier to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at others, rather than stand on the firing line yourself, eh?

This illustrates my point at the beginning of this thread. Is it not ok to be undecided on an issue or particular portion of an issue? Can't somebody decide, "that really is not for me to decide?" It's ok for a person to not be as passionate about a particular topic as yourself and therefore be undecided. It is rarely a good way to promote your argument if you attack those that are supporting your stance (at least mostly)......unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Whatever. I support your stance too. Fire away.

Of course it's okay to be undecided. Then they should just say so, instead of holding back, being elusive, being ambiguous, and/or playing games to avoid stating their position. People should just have the spunk to speak their minds, say what they mean, and mean what they say. For some reason, many people find that hard to do. If he had just come right out and said so from the beginning, we wouldn't have had all this back-and-forth crap where I had to drag it out of him kicking and screaming.

[billvon 2,406]

>we wouldn't have had all this back-and-forth crap where I had to drag it out of him
>kicking and screaming.

So agreeing with you and answering your questions is "kicking and screaming." And yet you refuse to answer mine. How would you describe yourself, then?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
If this wasn't his first post on the site, which I think we've established, then how many skydiving related posts should he make before he can start a thread about guns in Speakers Corner? or Obama? or whatever in the appropriate forum?......and.......why do you care?

And ... and ... who told you ... I really do care?

Speakers Corner. A playground. Go ahead and break your head why ... he should make before .. or not ... start a thread ... or not ........

Cheers

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[wsd 0]

So in stating you would leave the cities and states to decide which firearms are OK and which are not would you then contend that this is within their power and that is it not wrong to discriminate solely upon cosmetics and name?

It confuses me when I read your statement as to your reasoning as to how this should be decided, is it a matter of wood vs. plastic?

Is it because of how the firearm is loaded? (magazine being external)

Please elaborate

[skybill 19]

Quote

If so please state if you are in favor of any restrictions to ownership, other than being a felon or adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompetent.

If you are in favor are there any firearms you think should be bannned?


If you are in favor of the complete removal of private gun ownership please opine why.

If you are in favor of restricting firearms ownership more than what is federally required please state why.


The rules are no waffling, no off topic discussion and or strawman arguments.


Be forthright and state exactly what you mean.

This is a challenge to anyone who tries to evade answering a direct question with a direct and on topic response.


I have my doubts about the ability of some to actually tell the truth about their beliefs.

Hi wd,
So, WTF'syerpoint? The answer to your question is either yes or no. BTW, fill out your profile and maybe if yer a good boy (or girl??)I might answer you.

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Quote

>Is this now an admission that you are opposed to those kinds of firearms?

Nope.

I am opposed to private ownership of military weapons - nuclear bombs, antiaircraft weapons, rocket propelled grenades, armed Predator drones, Sarin dispensers, four inch naval guns. I support Second Amendment protections for hunting weapons, handguns and other personal weapons. The stuff in between - your AR-15's and .50-caliber firearms - should be up to the states and cities where people live.

Now, how about you? Do you also oppose private ownership of nuclear bombs, antiaircraft weapons, rocket propelled grenades etc?

There's a bit of difference between large, crew-served weapons, or explosive devices and "personal weapons."

Most rifles (incuding .50 cal sniper rifles) fall under the "personal weapons" category. In the military, they are issued on an individual basis, and the individual that was issued the weapon is responsible for it (both "care & maintenance" and "breaking or losing" kinds of responsibility)

You specifically mentioned AR-15s as "stuff in between". In between "Normal Hunting Weapons" and large crew served weapons?
ARs in .223 are considered in many states as "Too small for deer sized game"
AR platforms in various calibers are becoming very popular for hunting.

While I fully agree that large crew served stuff and anything that goes "Boom" (RPGs, M-203's, hand grenades, ect) should be restricted, I don't like the idea of states and cities being able to decide which firearms are "good" and which are "bad".

That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[tmarine253 0]

Quote

Quote

>


You specifically mentioned AR-15s as "stuff in between". In between "Normal Hunting Weapons" and large crew served weapons?
ARs in .223 are considered in many states as "Too small for deer sized game"
AR platforms in various calibers are becoming very popular for hunting.


That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment.

I am glad someone brought this up. There are too many people in this world that think AR 15's are military weapons because they look like them. Like quoted above, they generally shoot .223 or .556. And they are also for the most part just semi-automatic, no three shot burst like its military counterpart. So for all of you that want to ban AR 15's you also may want to look at any semi-automatic rifle with a bigger round, such as a 30-06 or 7mm. The argument just doesn't make sense.

• Quote

[firemedic 7]

I am not in favor in any restrictions other than the 2 stated in the original post. Mental Illness and violent criminals.

I believed that private citizens should be able to freely possess any man carried firearm including fully automatic weapons.

[Krip 2]

Hi Bill

A troll, is what it is.

BTW whats wrong with a RPG
"One jump wonder"

[tsisson 0]

Quote

So in stating you would leave the cities and states to decide which firearms are OK and which are not would you then contend that this is within their power and that is it not wrong to discriminate solely upon cosmetics and name?

It confuses me when I read your statement as to your reasoning as to how this should be decided, is it a matter of wood vs. plastic?

Is it because of how the firearm is loaded? (magazine being external)

Please elaborate

This thread has simply become a boring, hidden agenda, pain in the ass, argumentative, hair splitting exercise.

[barflyer 0]

Quote

You entered this site just few days ago.

Why did you start with a weapon question?

Isn't it a skydiving site, first of all?

aw, cmon don't you want to be open, honest and forthright in publicly stating your position on weapons to this anonymous pollster (at best)?

In fact, I really don't mind - but, I'm an alien, and seen from a far distance ......

[SpeedRacer 1]

I agree with private ownership of firearms.

But I get fed up with those gun owners who go around with a chip on their shoulder about it 24/7.

Some of them believe everyone's out to take away their guns, even when they're not. They never seem to get out of Angry Victim Mode.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Beachbum 0]

For me, it goes back to what I feel was the main reason behind the 2nd. I think that in terms of hand held firearms, that if the government can own it, I should be able to own it also.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[quade 3]

Quote

For me, it goes back to what I feel was the main reason behind the 2nd. I think that in terms of hand held firearms, that if the government can own it, I should be able to own it also.

Why? Where in the 2nd does it say anything specifically about that? It doesn't. It says, "shall not be infringed", but it doesn't say universally and without question as long as the weapons are also used by the government.

Taken to an extreme, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IN ANY WAY, the clause "shall not be infringed" would still remain intact even if the government only allowed you a very limited range of weapon choices because you'd still have the right to own a firearm.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Taken to an extreme, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IN ANY WAY, the clause "shall not be infringed" would still remain intact even if the government only allowed you a very limited range of weapon choices because you'd still have the right to own a firearm.

So, according to your "suggestion", if the citizens could own .22 rimfire rifles only, but nothing else, then you would not consider that a violation of the 2nd Amendment?

If so, then your suggested interpretation sure leaves a lot to be desired.

Hey, under that theory, government could take away the internet, print media, TV and radio, as long as you still have the right to write letters. Correct? Would you have a 1st Amendment problem with that?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

For me, it goes back to what I feel was the main reason behind the 2nd. I think that in terms of hand held firearms, that if the government can own it, I should be able to own it also.

Why? Where in the 2nd does it say anything specifically about that? It doesn't. It says, "shall not be infringed", but it doesn't say universally and without question as long as the weapons are also used by the government.

Taken to an extreme, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IN ANY WAY, the clause "shall not be infringed" would still remain intact even if the government only allowed you a very limited range of weapon choices because you'd still have the right to own a firearm.

To what extent or limit? And how or who would determine that limit?

I am genuinely curious Quade. If put totally in the hands of gov bureaucrats how would they be limited in their decisions?

Making decisions for either side?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For me, it goes back to what I feel was the main reason behind the 2nd. I think that in terms of hand held firearms, that if the government can own it, I should be able to own it also.

Why? Where in the 2nd does it say anything specifically about that? It doesn't. It says, "shall not be infringed", but it doesn't say universally and without question as long as the weapons are also used by the government.

Taken to an extreme, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IN ANY WAY, the clause "shall not be infringed" would still remain intact even if the government only allowed you a very limited range of weapon choices because you'd still have the right to own a firearm.

To what extent or limit? And how or who would determine that limit?

I am genuinely curious Quade. If put totally in the hands of gov bureaucrats how would they be limited in their decisions?

Making decisions for either side?

Well, they already DO make a number of decisions about hand held guns (which is what I was responding to), the limit doesn't seem to be anywhere near what most people on the pro-gun side fear. Nobody that I know has ever suggested limiting weapons to (as in JR's response to me) .22 cal weapons, but to Beachbum's point, they already limit machine guns and automatic weapons. Yes, yes, I see some people have a problem with that, but the courts have upheld the government IS within its rights to do so and it doesn't violate the 2nd.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Guest]

Quote

Yes, especially this kind (attached).
That's not off-topic.

Edited to add - NSFW image.

Girl #5 - obviously fake - BOO!

There should be a law about that (topless women bearing arms for photo shoots and bullet shoots should be bearing [and baring] REAL boobs).

mh
.

edit to add titillating double-entendre

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[riggerrob 558]

Since I am not allowed to collect heavy machine guns in British Columbia, what is the fun to owning firearms????

[skybill 19]

Quote

Hi Bill

A troll, is what it is.

BTW whats wrong with a RPG
"One jump wonder"

Hi Ripper,
Yup, you got it, "Troll!!" And a geek at that.

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

For me, it goes back to what I feel was the main reason behind the 2nd. I think that in terms of hand held firearms, that if the government can own it, I should be able to own it also.

Why? Where in the 2nd does it say anything specifically about that? It doesn't. It says, "shall not be infringed", but it doesn't say universally and without question as long as the weapons are also used by the government.

Taken to an extreme, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IN ANY WAY, the clause "shall not be infringed" would still remain intact even if the government only allowed you a very limited range of weapon choices because you'd still have the right to own a firearm.

Weapons of Mass Destruction existed in the time of the Founders (cannon, explosive projectiles, grenades). Even in Colonial times, rifles (as opposed to smooth-bore muskets), in the right hands, were both effective and lethal. Of course, this required a skilled operator, not the cannon-fodder that marched in a line.

So we aren't talking about RPGs or the M1 Abrams here. We're talking about the citizen soldier (even though in modern times we have a professional force).

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why? Where in the 2nd does it say anything specifically about that? It doesn't. It says, "shall not be infringed", but it doesn't say universally and without question as long as the weapons are also used by the government.

Taken to an extreme, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IN ANY WAY, the clause "shall not be infringed" would still remain intact even if the government only allowed you a very limited range of weapon choices because you'd still have the right to own a firearm.

did you actually pay attention to Heller? It concerned DC's banning of handguns, and the court concluded rather clearly that this wasn't acceptable.

Not sure how you think universally doesn't mesh into "shall not be infringed, either.

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

Quote

For me, it goes back to what I feel was the main reason behind the 2nd. I think that in terms of hand held firearms, that if the government can own it, I should be able to own it also.

Why? Where in the 2nd does it say anything specifically about that? It doesn't. It says, "shall not be infringed", but it doesn't say universally and without question as long as the weapons are also used by the government.

Taken to an extreme, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT IN ANY WAY, the clause "shall not be infringed" would still remain intact even if the government only allowed you a very limited range of weapon choices because you'd still have the right to own a firearm.

No, it doesn't state that specifically, but few of our laws are as specific as they could be, and in most cases, I think they are intentionally written that way. I'm certainly no legal scholar, but I said what I did because, taken in light of the political climate at the time, I believe the 2nd had a lot to do with the fact that the colonies felt the need to rebel against the government that was controlling them at the time.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?