Posted - 12/31/2012 3:28:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Turning our schools into prisons and our country into
a police state is the exact opposite of what our founders wanted for this country"
You don't have a clue what the Founders wanted. Apart from their writings...which never discussed turning America into a police state...there is NO record of their desires.
Yours is pure speculation.
Posted - 12/31/2012 3:47:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruise. Such a tool.
either for the I-Hate-Obama-Crowd, or for the NRA. Depends on the day.
Boy, talk about quoting out of context!! When I said "get rid of the guns so they don't have access to them." What part didn't you grasp?? I clearly said "Mental patients and sane people who want kill other people" Well forget that. In your head you saw I meant everyone. WRONG.
So you go thru the NRA list of other products that can hurt people too. See? That justifies my crazy neighbor owning an Uzi. Look. Your examples are absurd. An AK-47 is designed to kill people, your other examples are not.
When Ford designs a sedan with a barbed wire cow catcher in front, you may have a point. When "People die climbing mountains" and are met with a machine gun nest, you have a point. When "skis and snowboards" include a 100 bullet clip, you have a point. When roller coasters pack up and move like a Transformer and invade a school, you have a point.
Until then, you just sound ridiculous. Yes, I can kill someone with a toaster if so inclined (and you're really really drunk). Not what the products were designed for. The second--the very second--you show me how THIS (one ugly ass machine gun)
is actually designed to be a can opener, I'll take it all back. Until then, you look like an absolute idiot and a tool for the NRA.
(And btw??? "you would deprive more than 300 million people..." of WHAT??? There's only 311 million people in the whole country. So either every "Well Regulated Militia" member needs five guns (how many do you need to kill a deer anyway? Or to fight off the British for that matter) or they're giving out handguns at baby's first Christmas. Good Lord.)
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:04:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
Hitchcock made a movie in which a merry-go-round spins faster and faster. Maybe that's where cruiser got the idea.
A snowboard manufacturer makes a model called World Wide Weapon. Maybe that's where he got the idea.
Fantasy makes anything seem possible.
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:04:43 PM | show profile | flag this post
"..there is no record of their desires.."
perhaps cruiztwit will recall saying that next time he tries to lecture everyone else on EXACTLY what the founding fathers meant when they did the original work..
not likely.. but perhaps..
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:22:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
"An AK-47 is designed to kill people"
No, it emphatically is NOT. It is designed to...upon manipulation by a human user...send a projectile downrange...period. What effect that has is the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the USER.
Until you and other anti-gun zealots correct your wholly wrong-headed concept, you will NEVER have the right slant on this issue.
Similarly, a hammer is designed to...upon manipulation by a human user...strike another object such as a nail. But HUMANS sometimes use hammers to maim or kill.
You and the other anti-gun zealots try to put the onus on firearms because you don't have the balls to deal with the PEOPLE problem.
"That justifies my crazy neighbor owning an Uzi"
As long as your neighbor's Uzi complies with all applicable laws, it requires no justification. The fact that it is compliant with the law is sufficient.
And if your neighbor IS crazy and owns an Uzi, THEN WHY IN THE HELL HAVEN'T YOU REPORTED HIM??? Don't have the balls?
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:25:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
Man, it just piles on
cruise? You just keep tripping over yourself.
"PEOPLE. In order to solve the problem you have to solve that component." Well, we know that. You can either lock up all the dangerous people or lock up all the dangerous guns. Take away all the dangerous people or take away all the dangerous guns. Which one is easier?
(And keep in mind here you're talking about "potentially dangerous" people; mental patients and the such, not to mention those who have their semis and fully autos stolen [and they don't have to report it] or those who re-sell them [and don't report it])
"Your approach is as silly as Puritan religious leaders admonishing their adherents not to discuss sex. That didn't prevent babies"
Well thank you Mr. Klondike Barbie. We've been saying that for years...where have you been?? Talking and teaching about abstinence doesn't do squat. Thanks for bringing it up.
"You don't have a clue what the Founders wanted. Apart from their writings...which never discussed turning America into a police state...there is NO record of their desires"
Apart from THEIR WRITINGS??? You mean, like the CONSTITUTION?!?! That whole "Well Regulated Militia" thing they wrote?? That didn't give you a clue?? Which part?? WELL. REGULATED.? or MILITIA?
"NO record of their desires". Good Grief. We have tons of records of their desires...from the obvious 'Well Regulated Militia" to why they avoided dealing with slavery, to Church and State, to Federalism to Religion, you name it. One could say it only counts what they put down in the Const, I'll buy that. But don't tell me we have ""NO record of their desires". I'll remember you said that.
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:38:58 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Which part?? WELL. REGULATED.? or MILITIA?"
We've been over this before and you refuse to learn. A "well-regulated" militia...in the parlance of the time...was one that was well equipped and well trained. The mere existence of a militia had NO component of government control unless and until it was mobilized.
Besides, the militia was EVERY citizen...hence "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
You're as rock-headed as you are wrong.
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:42:36 PM | show profile | flag this post
Comparing to a hammer to an Uzi??
Yep. Same thing, obviously. They're both apparently designed to drive a nail into some wood. Or, they're both designed to drive 600 nails into a piece of wood at 400 metres per second at a range of 200 meters....with FIFTY nine mm nails.
Yea. I had to look that up. Had no idea my Sears hammer was so friggin dangerous.
As for my neighbor--another classic contradiction. If he was "crazy" and not in the hospital, not a damn thing the cops can do about the Uzi. "As long as your neighbor's Uzi complies with all applicable laws, it requires no justification. The fact that it is compliant with the law is sufficient." cruise taught me that.
But thanks for another point against your warped logic.
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:43:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
Once again you deliberately and dishonestly misquoted me
What I said was, "Apart from their writings...which never discussed turning America into a police state...there is NO record of their desires."
What part of "apart from their writings" did you fail to understand?
Oh but you understood it perfectly. You're just being dishonest...again.
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:45:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
Face it, fool
I've owned you in every discussion we've ever had. I suppose that's why you feel a compulsion to be dishonest.
Posted - 12/31/2012 4:55:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
Keep setting them up...
This is like T-Ball with a blind guy.
"A "well-regulated" militia...in the parlance of the time...was one that was well equipped and well trained."
Oh. So "WELL REGULATED" doesn't mean "well regulated"...like how we regulate cars or airplanes.. It means they should have enough guns to do the job. And be well trained at it. Gotcha. Where'd you get all that?? I heard somewhere "there is NO record of their desires"
(The "well trained" part is obvious crap too. A 16 yr old has to pass a drivers test to drive--pilots and train engineers and some boat skippers have to go through the same thing--but there's no mandatory test for someone owning a machine gun.)
"Besides, the militia was EVERY citizen..." REALLY?? Where was that written down??
On and on and on. You keep making stuff up. and I keep knockin them down.
Posted - 12/31/2012 5:06:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
"and I keep knockin them down"
ROFL! You keep swinging and missing.
Posted - 12/31/2012 5:28:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
Except for the FACT...
...that a well regulated militia at the time of the founding included not just the registration of citizen militiamen, but also the registration of their weapons and inspection that both they, and their arms, were in we'll working order.
It was recorded. There are volumes and volumes of ledgers.
In other words:
The founders regulated both militias and arms.
Regulation, and laws restricting them, made them by definition, "well regulated"
That's is simple, unarguable, historical fact.
Modern, bizarre, right wing legal argument only changed that.
Not original intent.
Posted - 12/31/2012 9:46:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
"That's is simple, unarguable, historical fact"
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. The ONLY reason that colonial arms were inspected was to see that they were in working order, and...in a few cases...to make sure that the militiaman was equipped with the approved armament.
Posted - 12/31/2012 10:01:17 PM | show profile | flag this post
Ah. For the Good Ole Days...
"...to make sure that the militiaman was equipped with the approved armament."
Which is a helluva lot more than they do now. Kind of makes you wish they enforced that 2nd Amendment like they used to, don't it?
Posted - 12/31/2012 11:46:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
You couldn't be more wrong
The reason armaments were "approved" was for logistical reasons. If EVERY militia member was equipped with the same brand, caliber, etc., parts and repairs were much simpler and ammunition was not a problem because it would fit every musket in the company.
It was NOT for the purpose of "regulating" in the sense you use the word.
I can't believe you're that dense.
Posted - 1/1/2013 4:27:43 AM | show profile | flag this post
Oh I get it...
... If militiamen didn't have the properly REGULATED weapons, or REGULATED ammunition, or did not meet the REGULATED standards of the militia, they were kicked out.
Clearly there wasn't any gun control or regulations or restrictions.
Now how many Founders were carrying concealed?
Posted - 1/1/2013 8:08:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." — Mark Twain
Posted - 1/2/2013 9:39:39 AM | show profile | flag this post
the AK-47 was designed to kill people.
The Russian army had no desire to simply "send a projectile downrange."
They wanted a weapon system that would kill people. Lots of people, and do it efficiently.
As a matter of fact, the primary requirement for the AR-15 prototype (gun and ammo) -- as specified by the federal government -- was that it be capable of piercing a steel combat helmet and still deliver a kill. The combination of muzzle length and the .223 caliber round achieved this. That allowed the AR-15 to be modified for production as the M-16 for the military.
Guns -- particularly assault weapons -- are designed to be killing machines. That is their purpose.