henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 1:53 am
My parents also taught me to shoot. And -- thank Crom -- there was and is no kind of mandatory training or licensing.
Yep. I remember too. Six years old. 22 revolver and sometimes the 38. Two guns of the hand. Out beside the house, shooting into a hay bale backed by a berm. 22 long-rifle with an uncle. No shotgun, too little. BB gun for me. I have a nice long-barrel pellet gun now for practice. Times change.
I was a little older, mebbe 10, when they took me out in the pasture behind the house, set up targets and we got started. Regular practice after that.
I was a big kid.
Gun control ... mind control. Mind affects breath, breath affects body, body affects a steady hand.
Compare a gun to a cannon. Because of the mere potential to use a cannon for harm, no private ownership is allowed and everyone is penalized. Why is that so if guns can be freely owned by any citizens? Is that not unfair?
Bazookas and land mines, mortars and bombs. The list goes on. If the 2nd Amendment applies to guns it would apply to any arms that I may keep in my home or even bring out in public. But it doesn’t protect ownership of all armaments. Is that because the argument weakens ad absurdium as the weaponry strengthens in degree of lethality?
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:04 pm
Bazookas and land mines, mortars and bombs. The list goes on. If the 2nd Amendment applies to guns it would apply to any arms that I may keep in my home or even bring out in public. But it doesn’t protect ownership of all armaments. Is that because the argument weakens ad absurdium as the weaponry strengthens in degree of lethality?
1776. Muzzle loading muskets; reload time 3 shots in 2 minutes.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think the gun nuts tend to conveniently ignore the necessity of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". Since the colonial authority wishing to establish an independent state relied on citizenry to respond to challenges, though it did not have the ability to raise sufficient taxation to have an army, every Joe was encouraged to join the local militia.
We have come a long way since then.
It was never the idea to have every redneck dickhead posses an automatic weapon.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:48 pm
Compare a gun to a cannon. Because of the mere potential to use a cannon for harm, no private ownership is allowed and everyone is penalized. Why is that so if guns can be freely owned by any citizens? Is that not unfair?
It's not unfair: it's wrong.
And: I'm not sure it is illegal to own a cannon...
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:04 pm
Bazookas and land mines, mortars and bombs. The list goes on. If the 2nd Amendment applies to guns it would apply to any arms that I may keep in my home or even bring out in public. But it doesn’t protect ownership of all armaments. Is that because the argument weakens ad absurdium as the weaponry strengthens in degree of lethality?
As I say multiple times in-thread: I don't care about the 2nd. My right to property (a car, a baseball bat, a shotgun, a bazooka, etc.) doesn't extend out of words on paper.
And, I don't give a flip about other's assessments of appropriateness or lethality. Again: if I've done no wrong with my property, then my property is nobody's business.
commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:04 pm
Bazookas and land mines, mortars and bombs. The list goes on. If the 2nd Amendment applies to guns it would apply to any arms that I may keep in my home or even bring out in public. But it doesn’t protect ownership of all armaments. Is that because the argument weakens ad absurdium as the weaponry strengthens in degree of lethality?
As I say multiple times in-thread: I don't care about the 2nd. My right to property (a car, a baseball bat, a shotgun, a bazooka, etc.) doesn't extend out of words on paper.
And, I don't give a flip about other's assessments of appropriateness or lethality. Again: if I've done no wrong with my property, then my property is nobody's business.
If your property is a rocket propelled grenade launcher it’s everyone’s business even if you haven’t done anything wrong with it yet. If your property is a vicious animal or one capable of vicious attack even if it hasn’t been vicious yet, it’s everyone’s business.
Whether that business should entail restrictions and regulations or a complete ban on ownership is a matter for public discussion.
If your property is a rocket propelled grenade launcher it’s everyone’s business even if you haven’t done anything wrong with it yet.
Becuz of what I might do with it, yeah?
Guilty till proven innocent, comrade.
If your property is a vicious animal or one capable of vicious attack even if it hasn’t been vicious yet, it’s everyone’s business.
How do you know the animal is vicious? I mean, if it hasn't actually attacked someone.
Whether that business should entail restrictions and regulations or a complete ban on ownership is a matter for public discussion.
Well, you can let other folks have a say in what you own if you like: I won't.
How would you feel if a neighborhood watch group showed up in a Sherman tank and began shelling your precious property? Wouldn’t you think you should have a say in how tanks are used?
People are more important than property. The safety of people from potential grievous harm outweighs the safety of property from being stolen, broken or taken away.
How would you feel if a neighborhood watch group showed up in a Sherman tank and began shelling your precious property? Wouldn’t you think you should have a say in how tanks are used?
No, I'd just want a say in how deep to bury the sob's...and: I'd want that tank as compensation.
People are more important than property. The safety of people from potential grievous harm outweighs the safety of property from being stolen, broken or taken away.
Then folks ought to value their own lives more than my property. That is: if you like your life, leave my property be.
How would you feel if a neighborhood watch group showed up in a Sherman tank and began shelling your precious property? Wouldn’t you think you should have a say in how tanks are used?
No, I'd just want a say in how deep to bury the sob's...and: I'd want that tank as compensation.
LOL and irrelevant. Your home, your family and you are destroyed.
People are more important than property. The safety of people from potential grievous harm outweighs the safety of property from being stolen, broken or taken away.
Then folks ought to value their own lives more than my property. That is: if you like your life, leave my property be.
