And here they come out of woodwork

Status
Not open for further replies.
what's the law against flying without an airmans certificate?
 
Cooter said:
Wow. Please God don't let the day come when you get to determine what my "needs" are! Who are you that you get to determine the why, the what and how many? The fact that you blantanly misunderstand the purpose of the Second Amendment is proof enough that your opinion should not be heeded. Why do you have so little regard for the Constitution?

Yes indeed. Because the Constitution allows us. It's a shame that our Constitutional rights bring you such grief.
Click to expand...

Oh I have regard for the Constitution, but I think it's people who take that "right to bear arms" to mean "All the guns are belonging to me now" are just not right in the head. No one needs more than a couple guns. People WANT more than a couple guns. It's about want here..not need.

Some folks can't self-regulate. I very seriously doubt the forefathers intended for us to own an unnecessary amount of firearms. Perhaps they should have been more specific since self-entitlement seems to be a thing lately.
 
Caramon13 said:
Oh I have regard for the Constitution, but I think it's people who take that "right to bear arms" to mean "All the guns are belonging to me now" are just not right in the head. No one needs more than a couple guns. People WANT more than a couple guns. It's about want here..not need.

Some folks can't self-regulate. I very seriously doubt the forefathers intended for us to own an unnecessary amount of firearms. Perhaps they should have been more specific since self-entitlement seems to be a thing lately.
Click to expand...
It's not for you to decide what another man needs. The constitution is clear on that also.
 
Salty said:
It's not for you to decide what another man needs. The constitution is clear on that also.
Click to expand...

Who said I am?

I'm just offering my opinion. I offer no judgement. I thought that was evident..perhaps not.
 
Caramon13 said:
Here you go:

U.S. Code § 46317
Click to expand...
Did they charge him with operating in "air transportation"? How exactly can you figure that he was doing air transportation?
 
Caramon13 said:
Who said I am?

I'm just offering my opinion. I offer no judgement. I thought that was evident..perhaps not.
Click to expand...
Right. "just not right in the head" isn't a judgement. :rolleyes:
 
Caramon13 said:
Oh I have regard for the Constitution, but I think it's people who take that "right to bear arms" to mean "All the guns are belonging to me now" are just not right in the head. No one needs more than a couple guns. People WANT more than a couple guns. It's about want here..not need.

Some folks can't self-regulate. I very seriously doubt the forefathers intended for us to own an unnecessary amount of firearms. Perhaps they should have been more specific since self-entitlement seems to be a thing lately.
Click to expand...
Again, who are you to make that determination? Who are you to determine what someone else's needs are? Speak for yourself and choose not to own if you wish. But quit trying to limit freedoms because you don't like them.
 
Caramon13 said:
Oh I have regard for the Constitution, but I think it's people who take that "right to bear arms" to mean "All the guns are belonging to me now" are just not right in the head. No one needs more than a couple guns. People WANT more than a couple guns. It's about want here..not need.
Click to expand...
I understand that you are not a hunter or target shooter. I do not use the same gun for goose, quail, or deer. That's three guns right there without even trying. Add to that target rifles for short and long range (at least two more guns) and handguns for target and competition shooting (at least two more). So an avid shooter certainly needs more than a couple guns. You may not like it and you are free to continue to deny it. Your call.
 
Clark1961 said:
I understand that you are not a hunter or target shooter. I do not use the same gun for goose, quail, or deer. That's three guns right there without even trying. Add to that target rifles for short and long range (at least two more guns) and handguns for target and competition shooting (at least two more). So an avid shooter certainly needs more than a couple guns. You may not like it and you are free to continue to deny it. Your call.
Click to expand...
In all due respect, your are arguing the wrong point. The second amendment says nothing about having the pleasure of owning different styles of hunting rifles. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to hunt. The 2nd amendment is about preserving our freedoms from those who would wish to take them away from us.
 
Caramon13 said:
The three I list would be the limit, theoretically..its a start. Sorry but you will never convince me you need 20 guns for 20 different purposes. The fact is you have 20 because you wanted 20 and..that's the problem with things today.
Click to expand...

If I will never convince you, there's not much point in the discussion, is there?

But to aid your understanding just a little bit,...
- My full-choke, 30" barrel 12ga works fine on turkeys and ducks but makes a terrible quail gun.
- My SxS LC Smith, with no choke in the first barrel and IC in the second, works fine on quail but not too good on pass shooting doves.
- My .22LR scoped Marlin makes a dandy squirrel rifle, but won't drop a deer.
- My 7-round .357 magnum with the laser grip is ideal for home protection, but is much too large and heavy to carry concealed.
...and so forth.

Step 1 if you want to make a good case for your point of view should be to have a little more understanding of the things you'd like to regulate.


What government are you overthrowing? I'm not talking about militia or military, I'm talking about private citizens.
Click to expand...

You do realize that militia are, in fact, private citizens? Please, please, sir - if you're going to continue discussing firearms law in the US, spend some time studying US history.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788​

If you'd like a modern definition, try Wikipedia

A militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/[1] is generally an army or some other of fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel,...​


The second amendment exists primarily to ensure that the USG remains answerable to the citizenry.
 
Cooter said:
In all due respect, your are arguing the wrong point. The second amendment says nothing about having the pleasure of owning different styles of hunting rifles. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to hunt. The 2nd amendment is about preserving our freedoms from those who would wish to take them away from us.
Click to expand...
Where did I say anything about the second amendment? You argue what you want and I'll argue what I want. (in all due respect....I suggest that you don't use that line when trying to tell someone else what to do. You showed no respect for my choice.)
 
Clark1961 said:
I understand that you are not a hunter or target shooter. I do not use the same gun for goose, quail, or deer. That's three guns right there without even trying. Add to that target rifles for short and long range (at least two more guns) and handguns for target and competition shooting (at least two more). So an avid shooter certainly needs more than a couple guns. You may not like it and you are free to continue to deny it. Your call.
Click to expand...

Certainly for hunting you need a certain type of gun. Again, what I mentioned earlier, theory. I would hope those who ACTUALLY make the laws know more than I do. :)
 
murphey said:
While I do not agree with her statement, I'm offended at the blatant assumption that academic freedom is a license to say anything. It's not. Unfortunately, the only time "academic freedom" argument is derided is when someone objects to either the speaker and/or the comments being made. Works both ways folks.
Click to expand...

Actually, the First Amendment does give someone the right to say anything, free of government censorship. What it does not do is to protect someone from the consequences arising from their actions.

murphey said:
This is common, and has been for years in the initial hiring process. Why do you think I used my dog on social sites (very few, too) and only use my real name on legit professional sites ( and very few of those, too)?
Click to expand...

Not just the initial hiring process. This person got fired for showing their body (and lots of it) online: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...n-fired-bank-topless-photo-shoot-12249281.php
 
Caramon13 said:
Certainly for hunting you need a certain type of gun. Again, what I mentioned earlier, theory. I would hope those who ACTUALLY make the laws know more than I do. :)
Click to expand...
That response makes no sense. What are you attempting to say? You've stated that no one needs more than a couple guns. I refuted that. You appear to want to disagree but maybe you got lost on the response? I dunno?
 
Clark1961 said:
Where did I say anything about the second amendment? You argue what you want and I'll argue what I want. (in all due respect....I suggest that you don't use that line when trying to tell someone else what to do. You showed no respect for my choice.)
Click to expand...
Ok, I retract the respect part.
 
Salty said:
So I repeat. More regulations do nothing if they don't make something new illegal.
Click to expand...

Bro, those are LAWS he broke. Repeat it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

I'm not suggesting making something illegal, just increasing regulations.
 
Cooter said:
In all due respect, your are arguing the wrong point. The second amendment says nothing about having the pleasure of owning different styles of hunting rifles. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right to hunt. The 2nd amendment is about preserving our freedoms from those who would wish to take them away from us.
Click to expand...


You are quite correct. The 2A isn't about the right to keep and bear sporting goods. Its protections would therefore seem more applicable to an AR15, or even a full-auto M16, than to a double-barrel shotgun.
 
I can only shoot one gun at a time....what difference does it make....how many I have? o_O
 
Clark1961 said:
That response makes no sense. What are you attempting to say? You've stated that no one needs more than a couple guns. I refuted that. You appear to want to disagree but maybe you got lost on the response? I dunno?
Click to expand...

So you are telling me that you need, and by need I mean similar to "need" air to live, all those guns to kill all those critters? Or you simply WANT those guns because killing those critters makes you happy?
 
Half Fast said:
You are quite correct. The 2A isn't about the right to keep and bear sporting goods. Its protections would therefore seem more applicable to an AR15, or even a full-auto M16, than to a double-barrel shotgun.
Click to expand...
Right, we have guns to fight back. No one wants to say that anymore. Kim Jong un would have a much harder time starving his people if they had a 2nd Amendment.
 
Caramon13 said:
Oh I have regard for the Constitution, but I think it's people who take that "right to bear arms" to mean "All the guns are belonging to me now" are just not right in the head. No one needs more than a couple guns. People WANT more than a couple guns. It's about want here..not need.

Some folks can't self-regulate. I very seriously doubt the forefathers intended for us to own an unnecessary amount of firearms. Perhaps they should have been more specific since self-entitlement seems to be a thing lately.
Click to expand...

You are right some people can't self regulate and some people become gun hoarders just like others become cat hoarders. Or in the case of my sister, hoarders of miniature ceramic turtles - of all things...

Just because some people can't self regulate is no reason to put restrictions on the rest of us. It didn't work during alcohol prohibition. It's not working for opiate addiction today. Addicts buy pills on any street corner at any time but pain patients getting them legally have to jump through all kinds of hoops including shortages caused by DEA restrictions on quantities produced and doctors quitting prescribing them for fear of legal trouble. Crime is greatly increased so addicts can fund their illegal purchases. The tighter you control access the more you hurt the innocent.

Guns are the same, except the overwhelming majority of out of control gun collectors are hurting no one. The psycho in Vegas did not do what he did because he collected guns. He did it because he was a psycho, and no matter what regulations were in place or what he could or could not have obtained, he would have found a way to manifest his sick rage.
 
Clark1961 said:
Thank you. You dishonor yourself when you claim respect while obviously not giving it.
Click to expand...
You have a feeble sense of honor if you believe it can be so easily be forfeited. Bestowing more credit than is due is not a dishonor, it's civility. Civility that is obviously lost on some.
 
Caramon13 said:
So you are telling me that you need, and by need I mean similar to "need" air to live, all those guns to kill all those critters?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I told you. You are commended on your reading comprehension skills for that post.
It is very common to hunt waterfowl, upland birds, and deer for sustenance in many parts of this country. The protein source is an excellent alternative to paying a butcher or grocer.
 
Cooter said:
You have a feeble sense of honor if you believe it can be so easily be forfeited. Bestowing more credit than is due is not a dishonor, it's civility. Civility that is obviously lost on some.
Click to expand...
It is not civil when it is a blatant lie with the obvious intention of demeaning someone. And yes, your words do dishonor you when they indicate that you really don't respect other valid opinions.
 
Caramon13 said:
Bro, those are LAWS he broke. Repeat it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

I'm not suggesting making something illegal, just increasing regulations.
Click to expand...
You are making zero sense.
 
Clark1961 said:
It is not civil when it is a blatant lie with the obvious intention of demeaning someone. And yes, your words do dishonor you when they indicate that you really don't respect other valid opinions.
Click to expand...
Lose control much? Jeez man, have a seat and cool off.
 
Clark1961 said:
Yes, that is what I told you. You are commended on your reading comprehension skills for that post.
It is very common to hunt waterfowl, upland birds, and deer for sustenance in many parts of this country. The protein source is an excellent alternative to paying a butcher or grocer.
Click to expand...

But, you DO have an alternative then no? Then it's not a need. It's a commodity, an alternative and a choice.
 
Caramon13 said:
So you are telling me that you need, and by need I mean similar to "need" air to live, all those guns to kill all those critters? Or you simply WANT those guns because killing those critters makes you happy?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of wanting x number of guns. Because the 2nd amendment mentions militia, it is pretty clear that the intent is an armed citizenry against enemies from within or without, in other words, human opponents. Back in late 1700's the framers might have had British redcoats in mind, or even hostile Indians. As such, the "arms" referenced would be the equivalent of what a foot soldier would carry. If your infrantry enemy had long rifles or muskets, you would have the same, if small arms, yes, bayonet, yes. Today the soldier on the ground would carry a fully automatic rifle and that is the standard to which I interpret the 2nd to apply.

Edit: I meant to respond to your problem with allowing numbers of guns. Yes an "arsenal" should be allowed or rather I see it as part of the Right to have and bear. If a neighborhood comes under attack you might be able to supply your neighbors with arms if they did not have the means or foresight to arm themselves. You need to band with others when it hits the fan. I see nothing wrong with stockpiling weapons for such purposes although I personally don't own a lot of guns for that reason ( I own a lot for the same reason I own several different coffee brewers. Each has its own unique qualities.)

I think a zombiepocolypse is unlikely but possible and I view firearm stockpiling like prepper food hoarding... if you ever need it you will be very glad you did it but odds are you won't, God willing, and it is expensive, time consuming and bothersome.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I don't think it's me that's confused. If a regulation doesn't make something illegal, which your first sentence clearly says it CAN do, then it serves no purpose. It changes nothing. Nobody has to do anything differently if it wasn't there. If someone is no longer allowed to do something because of the regulation - then the regulation is making something illegal.
Click to expand...

Caramon13 said:
Breaking a regulation doesn't mean you broke a law. And it doesn't mean you did something illegal. Some some regulations carry the force of a law, but they are not a law, therefore cannot be illegal.

If I fail to adhere to cloud clearances in VFR flight, I may be in violation of a regulation, but I ain't going to jail..and it's not illegal.

Lemme help you out again.

Illegal means: contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
Click to expand...

Let me help you guys out. Essentially, you guys are arguing whether the word "illegal" means "criminal." Ok, now carry on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top