Originally Posted By cape cod joe 19--It is NOT a constitutional right. We are not a militia and don't throw definitions out of Webster at me like Tom Sawyer did. You can't win that one with me.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon >>If you really mean ban free speech, gambling, etc> that's lunatic fringe thinking. If you're being facetious, it doesn't make you look good.<< Of course I dont mean those things. My point is this: If you take away a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution you open up Pandoras Box. Its all about choice. You can choose to be a gun owner or not. You can choose to get an abortion or not. You can choose to Gamble, smoke and drink or not. I worry about myself and what I think is right for my family. That doesnt mean you and your family should be like me. You can choose to go down your own path. Its the right to choose that I value so much.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe ditto here EXCEPT guns Dirk as we are NOT militia. No slippery slope here as my kids are not permitted to go over to a home with guns (except their uncle the teacher as he locks them up before I get there) and yes I ask the parents.
Originally Posted By bboisvert Dirk, that's a horrible story and I wish your family well. I've always been afraid of guns. Never owned one, never wanted to own one. However, I'm not going to tell anyone that they shouldn't own one. Like you said, "What's next" if they take that right away?
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Guns are great for opening beer cans. One blast and *bam* sweet, sweet beer. </Homer_drool> What was the quote that I read today? Something like: "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing the fields of those who didn't."
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon >>What was the quote that I read today? Something like: "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing the fields of those who didn't."<< Do you have any counter-argument other than jokes?
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I asked ccj what his idea of the militia was. Never got an answer.
Originally Posted By Ursula <Its all about choice. You can choose to be a gun owner or not.> See, I didn't choose to have a criminal put a gun to my head and yet that happened. I still think we have enough guns and that we should just stop making them and that would solve the entire issue on both sides. In a few hundred years the guns will eventually break and wear out. We'd all still have the right to bear arms, it's just that the guns might not actually fire.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Sorry CT I was just playing with my son and daughter. I think it's meant to be the military to defend our country. That's my gut feeling. We could argue this all day long but the facts are that countries without guns are safer than those with them.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger U S Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 § 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Tom did the same thing last month CT but there are also laws on the books in Mass against oral sex between married people and many other antediluvian laws, not so affectionately known as the blue laws. Like the Bible, the Constitution is ALL in the interpretation as we are about to find out in these next historic 3 decades or so, so hang onto your hats!!!
Originally Posted By HRM <<What was the quote that I read today? Something like: "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing the fields of those who didn't."<< You wouldn't have known who stated that would you?
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>You wouldn't have known who stated that would you?<< Alas, I'm not even sure I got the wording correctly.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>Tom did the same thing last month CT but there are also laws on the books in Mass against oral sex between married people and many other antediluvian laws, not so affectionately known as the blue laws. << Er, I guess you can think what you want, ccj, but that is the (AFAIK) unchallenged law of the US. You're citing a case where a law conflicts with what have been determined to be constitutional protections. That's quit different from when law codifies something well within the authority of the government.
Originally Posted By Ursula <sorry, but banning guns wont keep them away from criminals.> Criminals can't get guns if they are no longer made. Again, I'm not for banning them, I'm for stopping their production. And I beg to differ that by banning guns, it seemed to work in England.
Originally Posted By pecos bill The problem is not the guns... The problem is that any idiot can own one.
Originally Posted By DlandDug This is a sad story that makes it clear that only smart people should be allowed to own guns. Wouldn't that make it all so easy? I am still amazed that gun owners are not required to have a license or even registration. I mean, cars are a lot more useful (and ubiquitous) than guns, but you have to have a license to drive one, and even owning one requires registration. (P.S. I don't like to "swords and plowshares" joke because it mocks scripture, specifically Isaiah 2:4. But it is a kinda funny comment. According to the Wikipedia, it was Ben Franklin who made the irreverant emendation: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TDC" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U ser:TDC</a> Then again, don't believe everything you read on the internet!)
