Combat Handguns allowed in..Starbucks!

Probably. But that's probably where you and I differ. First, I don't think just anyone should be able to have access to that level of destructive inter-personal power, and second, the base intent of the second amendment has already been subverted. Your AR-15--even on full auto--isn't going to impress an M1A2 or F-15 too much.

 

Just curious how you got the bear hands?

 

He bought them in Post 68.

 

Acree, you...complete me.

 

Ahhhhhhhh. I must have been on vacation that page.

Well played, scotth

 

You don't HAVE to drive if you choose not to. Driving is not a RIGHT, it is a PRIVILEDGE. Keeping and bearing arms IS a right.

Anything the government can be trusted with, you should be trusted with. So yes, you should be able to own whatever weapon your heart desires and checkbook can pay for. BUT, using that weapon as means to inflict harm unto others should be a major penalty when apprehended. Right now, that is not the case. 'Gun' laws, (does that even make sense, I mean do we have 'scissor' laws?) aren't the problem, the lack of enforcement of normal laws is the problem.

I know a lot of people who have a lot of very potent weaponery and have never hurt a soul. Some don't even hunt, like I do not hunt. So does me having a gun or guns, for that matter, scare you somehow? Laws based on fear have never worked. Laws based on logic and reason can and do work. And that's where our law making should come from, not fear.

By the way, the constitution covers Federal government, not state governments which cover the issues you asked about.

Damian

 

I'd like to see the statistics on how many CCP's have committed murder with their handguns vs non CCP's. I know the stats are out there, I'm a little too busy at work to actually take that time to pursue such information!

Oh, I want a refund for my bear hands. I got the wrong size.

 

I think if the assailant were there to rape her, as it was in the scenario mentioned, she would be considered by most as morally superior. Maybe not by you.

Of course that's assuming she isn't some fucked up criminal too.

 

That AR-15 used effectively might impress the sleepy MP that's guarding that M1A2 or F-15. But once you get past him you have to find out where they keep the keys.

 

Let's back up. What I thought Tacticool (in before the name change) was saying was:

"It is considered by some (mostly those that favor gun control) to be morally superior for a woman to be raped and killed than for that same woman to shoot her assailant."

I disagree with that. I assume there are some people that would prefer to see someone raped and not killed than anyone killed (though I do not agree with that calculus). I assume there may be one or two people that believe it better to see a woman potentially raped and killed than see that same woman shoot anyone. But I do not agree with that either.

I am disagreeing with Mr. Toe that there are many people that think a woman being raped is better than an assailant being shot. In fact, even that there are enough of those people to register. If that's what he actually meant.

 

And that's about all those personal arms will be good for. Once the government gets geared up, you need artillery.

I'm going to say that the Second Amendment is--for all intents and purposes--pointless anymore.

Unless you mean as a defense against the standing army we've quartered amongst ourselves anyway (the police forces). But that's another argument, we already had it today, and they're getting tanks, too, so it's going to be moot on that front soon enough.

 

Well, anyone that wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens might as well believe that, because there will never be enough cops to take care of the mentioned scenario. Not that people truly believe the morality of the scenario but it's effectively the same thing.

Armed women do prevent rapes. Of course there won't be accurate stats for it (other than where they did shoot the bastard) because many times just the sight of hand gun will cause potential assailants to flee. I wouldn't expect it to be large numbers even if they are available but one is enough for me.

 

As long as there are more of us than there are police we will be okay to take them over if they get out of hand. We just have to start with the lawyers first. Kill all the lawyers then the policie will say fuck it and help us take over the National Guard.

 

And get a room fag. NTTAWWT.

 

That's too absolute for me. I understand the argument that if they haven't broken any laws yet, you can't say that they will.

I'd counter that the only reason some thus-far lawful people haven't shot anyone yet is because they haven't had the opportunity. Those people I am perfectly comfortable denying their Constitutional Second Amendment rights.

How you identify them is a bit tricky, and the best reason for why this hasn't already been implemented, I'm sure. I guess it's like porn: I can't define them, but I know them when I see them.

In fact, it's usually the people that drool over them the most that give me the heebies.

 

When the goverment bans personal ownership on tanks, only criminals will have tanks!!! I demand the right to own and bear tanks!

and anti tank weapons! and tow behind quad KPV 14.5mm soviet heavy machine guns with armor piercing incendiary full metal jacket round with a tungsten-carbide core ammo!

 

Aw, you're jealous. It's cute.

Putter's available, I bet.

(Thank god my s/o doesn't read this. I'd get a look.)

 

<sidetrack>
That phrase comes up every time gun nuts speak. I would be willing to bet that almost everyone who's ever committed a crime with a legally-owned gun was a law-abiding citizen until the trigger was pulled.
</sidetrack>

 

I understand what you are saying and it's an interesting way of stating it but do you really think there are very many of those type people that aren't already criminals or under psychiatric care? I don't. I do agree they shouldn't have weapons either.

I've never killed anyone and not likely to ever do so. God I hope I don't.

 

don't your monkeys have enough ordnance with poo and peanut shells?