NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, yes, I know that we already have too many gun control threads, but I felt the need to create one as there isn't a thread currently up about it :p.
So, do you support gun control? I say to a limit (No violent criminal history, or none within X number of years, etc,) but my stance is founded mostly on this quote:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson said that, and I couldn't agree more. So, your stance on gun control?

I'm pretty much in agreement with your stance.

I've never heard a compelling argument that gun ownership or trade is in itself something wrong.

Not much of an arguement from me. If no felony criminal record or mental illness and you are a citizen then you should be able to have a gun.

I not that supportive of all the extreme gun control laws such as those in NYC (21 to own a firearm,little or no CCW. Of course, this may also have something to do with my fascination with guns. I believe that if you pass a psych test, no criminal history and basic safety course, you should be able to own a gun. Nice quote by the way.

:sniper:

hell american gun law are something i respect about your country, i stick in England with a "showpiece" sword

I 100% agree. The criminals get the guns, while law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. Anyone who says "Well they can use another method to disarm them." The criminal's aren't meant to have the guns in the first place. And you may not be able to overpower a gun man, due to the fact you are weak in strength and the fact he'll shoot you before you come close.

I hate gun control threads. They always collapse into stupid arguments where people just sit around and throw statistics at each other.

Hamlet says of this thread: "How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable."

I hate gun control threads. They always collapse into stupid arguments where people just sit around and throw statistics at each other.

If we give them guns then they can shoot at each other. Call it the final solution.

I've always thought the fuss about carrying a concealed firearm is crazy. As if it would be okay to carry a weapon as long as you show everyone that you are armed. If people would see someone without a uniform but with a weapon walking down the street here they'd quickly get far away from that person and call the cops.

Owning guns for sport or collection is perfectly fine but a license that shows you are trained in safe usage is probably a good idea just as driver's license is.

If we give them guns then they can shoot at each other. Call it the final solution.

:confused:

I'm just saying that gun control threads get annoying after a while.

Yes, yes, I know that we already have too many gun control threads, but I felt the need to create one as there isn't a thread currently up about it :p.
So, do you support gun control? I say to a limit (No violent criminal history, or none within X number of years, etc,) but my stance is founded mostly on this quote:

Thomas Jefferson said that, and I couldn't agree more. So, your stance on gun control?

I agree with you completely CM.

I hate gun control threads. They always collapse into stupid arguments where people just sit around and throw statistics at each other.

Indeed.

Yes, yes, I know that we already have too many gun control threads, but I felt the need to create one as there isn't a thread currently up about it :p.
So, do you support gun control? I say to a limit (No violent criminal history, or none within X number of years, etc,) but my stance is founded mostly on this quote:

Thomas Jefferson said that, and I couldn't agree more. So, your stance on gun control?

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/aw%20jeez.jpg

There's ALREADY another gun thread in this forum (see here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551936). For this transgression, I voted for every poll option. :D

I'm for some gun control - you don't need an AK47 to defend yourself and are more liekly to kill me than the person attacking you with it - but it need to be enforced differently than by the BATF which has a long history of cluster:upyours:s when it comes to raids on gun owners.

I'm for some gun control - you don't need an AK47 to defend yourself and are more liekly to kill me than the person attacking you with it - but it need to be enforced differently than by the BATF which has a long history of cluster:upyours:s when it comes to raids on gun owners.

:confused:

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/aw%20jeez.jpg

There's ALREADY another gun thread in this forum (see here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551936). For this transgression, I voted for every poll option. :D

I followed your example. :D

I'm for some gun control - you don't need an AK47 to defend yourself and are more liekly to kill me than the person attacking you with it - but it need to be enforced differently than by the BATF which has a long history of cluster:upyours:s when it comes to raids on gun owners.

Need is irrelevant. You don't NEED a lot of the things you have, do you? But I do agree with you that the powers that be need to take a long hard look at the way the BATFE operates.

"Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave."
-Andrew Fletcher 1698
:sniper:

Gun control is an issue that I've never changed my position on. I do and have always felt it is a right of all lawful peoples to own firearms. I don't believe in restrictions on types either. If I want an M4 w/ silencer, I should be able to have one.

I've never seen to need for people to own firearms. This is coming from someone who likes guns, has been trained to used a fairly large range and has played with even more. Hell I've even used some munitions you wouldn't believe.

I would like to own guns but I've still never seen a convincing argument that my desire to have one is more important than the reasons to severly restrict them.

Yes, yes, I know that we already have too many gun control threads, but I felt the need to create one as there isn't a thread currently up about it :p.
So, do you support gun control? I say to a limit (No violent criminal history, or none within X number of years, etc,) but my stance is founded mostly on this quote:

Thomas Jefferson said that, and I couldn't agree more. So, your stance on gun control?

Wasn't he also the one who said there should be a revolution every thirty years? How's that going for you?

Wasn't he also the one who said there should be a revolution every thirty years? How's that going for you?
Show me where you got that. The closest thing I can think of is
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants it is it's natural manure
Which isn't talking about a revoloution.

No need to show the "Ah jeez" pic again.

Show me where you got that. The closest thing I can think of is

Which isn't talking about a revoloution.

It appears I've mixed to quotes up in my head, a look at wiki suggests that he advocated a legal revolution every 19 years and I connected that with the one you mentioned.

But if that quote isn't talking about revolution what is he talking about?

It appears I've mixed to quotes up in my head, a look at wiki suggests that he advocated a legal revolution every 19 years and I connected that with the one you mentioned.

But if that quote isn't talking about revolution what is he talking about?
This:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fries%27s_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
All of these brought an importent issue into light which had before been ignored.

This:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fries%27s_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
All of these brought an importent issue into light which had before been ignored.

And in all those links the one word that jumps out of me is 'rebellion'.

No need to show the "Ah jeez" pic again.

But I'm going to anyways (http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg).

I believe an armed populace is important to protecting the citizenry from potential tyranny, and as such I'm skeptical of gun bans and severe restrictions on gun ownership.

In my opinion, one shouldn't be allowed to own a fireweapon (of whatever kind), without a license, and a good gun cabinet to store it in.
Licensing depends on passing a test, testing for knowledge of gun safety, &c., criminal record, &c...

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
--Thomas Jefferson
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
--Thomas Jefferson
I feel it is important to show the whole picture when quoting great men. ;)

And I've been overusing smilies today. :(
Dang! I did it again! :headbang:

No need to show the "Ah jeez" pic again.

Need is irrelevant. :D

In my opinion, one shouldn't be allowed to own a fireweapon (of whatever kind), without a license, and a good gun cabinet to store it in.
Licensing depends on passing a test, testing for knowledge of gun safety, &c., criminal record, &c...

Fireweapon? Like a flamethrower?





:p

Yes, yes, I know that we already have too many gun control threads, but I felt the need to create one as there isn't a thread currently up about it :p.
So, do you support gun control? I say to a limit (No violent criminal history, or none within X number of years, etc,) but my stance is founded mostly on this quote:

Thomas Jefferson said that, and I couldn't agree more. So, your stance on gun control?

That's definitely a true statement.

However, the problem with this logic is that it misses something crucial: in this day and age, people should not have to take the law/stopping crime/what have you upon themselves. That's what the police are for.

As for my position on gun control, what I am in favor of are sensible methods to make sure that those that purchase them are able to use them safely. So, I would look more towards regulations in terms of requiring gun safety and use classes for any gun owner than trying to keep guns out of the hands of people altogether. A person who has no idea what they're doing with a gun is, after all, far more dangerous than someone who knows how to use one.

Thomas Jefferson said that

About black powder muskets. Times change.

About black powder muskets. Times change.

Lies. They had automatic muskets. Thats just another liberal media conspirecy.

About black powder muskets. Times change.

I saw nothing in the Thomas Jefferson quote that would indicate that he was only talking about muskets. He said arms, not flintlocks.

That's definitely a true statement.

However, the problem with this logic is that it misses something crucial: in this day and age, people should not have to take the law/stopping crime/what have you upon themselves. That's what the police are for.

As for my position on gun control, what I am in favor of are sensible methods to make sure that those that purchase them are able to use them safely. So, I would look more towards regulations in terms of requiring gun safety and use classes for any gun owner than trying to keep guns out of the hands of people altogether. A person who has no idea what they're doing with a gun is, after all, far more dangerous than someone who knows how to use one.


In america, the Police have no obligation to protect you.

When seconds count, help is just minutes away.

I saw nothing in the Thomas Jefferson quote that would indicate that he was only talking about muskets. He said arms, not flintlocks.


Well, considering Jefferson couldnt have imagined things beyond flintlocks...

Well, considering Jefferson couldnt have imagined things beyond flintlocks...

He couldn't imagine anything beyond the printing press, either.

Well, considering Jefferson couldnt have imagined things beyond flintlocks...

Sure he could have. He died in 1826, but the percussion principle was patented in 1807. There was also a breach loaded rifle used in the Revolutionary war (the Ferguson rifle), although the breach loaded concept was around since the 14th century.

About black powder muskets. Times change.

And yet the wisdom of the consitution does not. If a government decides to turn on its people, what course of action must free peoples take? The course of liberation. You prevent the self-defense of people against agression and you commit a criminal act.

I would like to own guns but I've still never seen a convincing argument that my desire to have one is more important than the reasons to severly restrict them.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/youarehere7957.jpg.html

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/willdo7955.jpg.html

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/yourkid0181.jpg.html

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/fists0205.jpg.html

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/youarehere7957.jpg.html

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/willdo7955.jpg.html

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/yourkid0181.jpg.html

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/fists0205.jpg.html

The problem with these image's message and Jefferson's statement are that ether of them are looking at the core problem.

First of all, these images make use of the Virgina tech shooting to justify looser gun laws, but most of the time, it's the already loose laws that allow the shooter to buy a weapon(s) and, well, start shooting. Had the gun laws been tighter, perhaps the shooting wouldn't have happened because he would have been unable to buy a gun.

Which brings me to my next point; Jefferson's comment only makes sense if you assume that there will always be guns available, while it's difficult to completely ban every gun in a nation, if guns where extremely hard to get, there will be less shootings.

Further more, for the most part, most mass shootings are carried out by people who have no previous criminal record, etc. If you give everyone a gun, you're just arming these people before they even become a problem. Conversely, if you DISARM the nation pro-actively, there would be less chance of someone snapping and killing everyone they see.

And here's the ultimate snag; if the shooter is indeed someone who's 'snapped' or is depressed and suicidal, what makes you think he or she is going to give a damn that the public is armed to the teeth? They already want to die, and if they're a good enough shot they can take out a few people before the victims can get their guns out and fire.

The problem with these image's message and Jefferson's statement are that ether of them are looking at the core problem.

First of all, these images make use of the Virgina tech shooting to justify looser gun laws, but most of the time, it's the already loose laws that allow the shooter to buy a weapon(s) and, well, start shooting. Had the gun laws been tighter, perhaps the shooting wouldn't have happened because he would have been unable to buy a gun.

Gun laws do absolutely nothing to deter criminals from owning firearms. Cho Seung-Hui was NOT allowed to own firearms as a result of his mental illness, but he slipped through the cracks. 32 people died as a result of their inability to defend themselves and the government failing to protect them to fill this power void. A SINGLE armed student could have saved a life that day with looser gun laws, yet here you are proclaiming that adding to the 22,000 thousand gun laws already on the books would have solved the problem. What is stopping an armed psycho from running into your house and killing your family? The government after you call them? The piece of legislation that passed in the house? Hardly.

Which brings me to my next point; Jefferson's comment only makes sense if you assume that there will always be guns available, while it's difficult to completely ban every gun in a nation, if guns where extremely hard to get, there will be less shootings.

This is not true. Look up gun crime (and violent) crime rates in Britain; they are going up yet guns are nearly completely banned. A better example is Washington, D.C. - my nation's capital has the strictest gun control laws in the country yet the highest rates of gun crime and murder. Simultaneously, states which allow their citizens to carry firearms feature a net reduction in crime.

Further more, for the most part, most mass shootings are carried out by people who have no previous criminal record, etc. If you give everyone a gun, you're just arming these people before they even become a problem. Conversely, if you DISARM the nation pro-actively, there would be less chance of someone snapping and killing everyone they see.

Criminals do not care what law you will pass. It was already illegal for Cho Seung Hui to carry his pistol onto the Virginia Tech Campus as it was already illegal for him to own his Glock and Walther in the first place. This did not stop him.

If you disarm the citizens of the country, you open the floodgates for victimization. I personally loved the dark ages where physical strength was the only means to defend ourselves.

And here's the ultimate snag; if the shooter is indeed someone who's 'snapped' or is depressed and suicidal, what makes you think he or she is going to give a damn that the public is armed to the teeth? They already want to die, and if they're a good enough shot they can take out a few people before the victims can get their guns out and fire.

You are actually arguing that they are going to snap anyways, so lets go ahead and disarm the rest of the population. Wow, sounds logical to me, right along with punishing everyone for the act of one or not even wanting to give people the right to defend themselves. Typical authoritarian dribble.

Response in bold.

As a free, conservative man, i believe in the ownership of firearms such as "Assault weapons", semi autos of all sorts, bolt action rifles, handguns, etc.

I still think however, there should be a background check for a criminal past, and should be over the age of 18.


< Owns a few bolt action's, shotguns, and conceal-carries a H&K USP every day, i cant own those "EVIL BLACK RIFLES" Because of the assault weapons ban.

(Edit for a quick statement)
Alot of people tell me i wouldn't need an AK47, or an AR variant to defend my home properly, but you cant think about ONE man coming in, you have to think of the variables, think of (I know i sound crazy) An invasion of US Territories, your bolt action isn't going to help you there when your in the shit with 50 crazy commie bastards charging your position.

[QUOTE=Rykarian Territories;13533446]As a free, conservative man, i believe in the ownership of firearms such as "Assault weapons", semi autos of all sorts, bolt action rifles, handguns, etc.

I still think however, there should be a background check for a criminal past, and should be over the age of 18.
QUOTE]

That's my only real problem with the gun situation right now...they don't do background checks at gun shows. x.x that's not right.

cameroi as always, proposes adoption of its simple answer the threat of fire arms, which is quite simply, to not produce them!

=^^=
.../\...

cameroi as always, proposes adoption of its simple answer the threat of fire arms, which is quite simply, to not produce them!

=^^=
.../\...

Which would be great if people could be trusted not to break said agreement =/

As a free, conservative man, i believe in the ownership of firearms such as "Assault weapons", semi autos of all sorts, bolt action rifles, handguns, etc.

I still think however, there should be a background check for a criminal past, and should be over the age of 18.


< Owns a few bolt action's, shotguns, and conceal-carries a H&K USP every day, i cant own those "EVIL BLACK RIFLES" Because of the assault weapons ban.

(Edit for a quick statement)
Alot of people tell me i wouldn't need an AK47, or an AR variant to defend my home properly, but you cant think about ONE man coming in, you have to think of the variables, think of (I know i sound crazy) An invasion of US Territories, your bolt action isn't going to help you there when your in the shit with 50 crazy commie bastards charging your position.

Which occupied territory are you in, that still has an assault weapons ban? I'm in CT, and my EBR is ban compliant.

[QUOTE=Rykarian Territories;13533446]As a free, conservative man, i believe in the ownership of firearms such as "Assault weapons", semi autos of all sorts, bolt action rifles, handguns, etc.

I still think however, there should be a background check for a criminal past, and should be over the age of 18.
QUOTE]

That's my only real problem with the gun situation right now...they don't do background checks at gun shows. x.x that's not right.

They were doing them at the last one I was at.

Gun laws do absolutely nothing to deter criminals from owning firearms.
That's why we enforce our laws rather than just hoping people obey them out of the goodness of their hearts.

Cho Seung-Hui was NOT allowed to own firearms as a result of his mental illness, but he slipped through the cracks. 32 people died as a result of their inability to defend themselves and the government failing to protect them to fill this power void.
He didn't slip through the cracks, he walked through the system that made no background checks into the truthfulness of his answers. It wasn't an oversight that would be caught most times it was an inherently flawed system.


A SINGLE armed student could have saved a life that day with looser gun laws, yet here you are proclaiming that adding to the 22,000 thousand gun laws already on the books would have solved the problem. What is stopping an armed psycho from running into your house and killing your family? The government after you call them? The piece of legislation that passed in the house? Hardly.
And with tighter gun laws we wouldn't have had a single armed student ending 32 lives. Stopping people having guns does tend to stop them shooting people.


This is not true. Look up gun crime (and violent) crime rates in Britain; they are going up yet guns are nearly completely banned. A better example is Washington, D.C. - my nation's capital has the strictest gun control laws in the country yet the highest rates of gun crime and murder. Simultaneously, states which allow their citizens to carry firearms feature a net reduction in crime.
False for a start, violent crime in Britain has been falling consistently for the last 12 years, and gun crime rate is a fraction of the US figure. It's useless having D.C. a tight gun policy if all people have to do is drive across a nearby border with no checks to get hold of one. A law poorly enforced isn't going to work.


Criminals do not care what law you will pass. It was already illegal for Cho Seung Hui to carry his pistol onto the Virginia Tech Campus as it was already illegal for him to own his Glock and Walther in the first place. This did not stop him.
Yes, because the laws were not enforced as they should have been.


If you disarm the citizens of the country, you open the floodgates for victimization. I personally loved the dark ages where physical strength was the only means to defend ourselves.
Yes, the dark ages are well-known for being the peak of human civilisation in terms of non-victimisation.


You are actually arguing that they are going to snap anyways, so lets go ahead and disarm the rest of the population. Wow, sounds logical to me, right along with punishing everyone for the act of one or not even wanting to give people the right to defend themselves. Typical authoritarian dribble.
This is not collective punishment. It's a preventative measure.

Which occupied territory are you in, that still has an assault weapons ban? I'm in CT, and my EBR is ban compliant.

I live in the horrible state of New york, upstate, to be precise..atleast i'm alloud to have some guns, heh.

I see no problem with a background check. A criminal record, in my opinion, should not automatically keep you from owning a weapon. With crimes that would do so, I think there should be a process for getting that ability back.

I do think that a gun safety course/test should be required. And perhaps a graduated license of sorts for different types of weapons, so that it would be harder to get an assault rifle than a revolver (just as there is a different test to get a driver's license for a regular car or for a mack truck).

I live in the horrible state of New york, upstate, to be precise..atleast i'm alloud to have some guns, heh.

You poor soul. There's some really nice scenery in upstate NY (I've been there twice), but the firearms laws suck in the state.

Same as yours. Over 18, no criminal history, no cases of mental illness. Need a strong database to go with it shared between FBI,ATF, and local police. Have a federal serial number marking system plus the manufactures serial numbers. Need to get a license first, things like that. Also there should be a safety and how to use 'em test after purchase.

Did you here about one place banned guns and saw a spike in violent crimes and one town forced its residents to own guns and crime plummeted? It was on the news but thats not really all too likely. But banning and ultra strict control laws are unconstitutional. Bnaning gus wont solve anything.

EDIT: Does anyone know where you can find the gun ccontrol laws of the states?

http://www.symbianer.com/UserFiles/Image/games/i-hate-guns-2.jpg

Guns should be banned except for the police or army.

Call me a loony lefty but I just think guns bring trouble.

Why not have gun control thread control?

Call me a loony lefty but I just think guns bring trouble.

I agree. Look at what Great Brittan did. No guns whatsoever. And their homicide rate is much lower than ours.:mp5:

Why not have gun control thread control?

Ditto!!

I agree. Look at what Great Brittan did. No guns whatsoever. And their homicide rate is much lower than ours.

Then feel free to go live in Great Britain then. But we, as Americans, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and if you were a believer in the Constitution, you'd believe in that right as well.

Personally, I don't care if I have to stockpile weapons illegally in the middle of nowhere -- no one's taking my guns.

I second that!

Guns should be banned except for the police or army.

Call me a loony lefty but I just think guns bring trouble.

Call me a right-wing extremist, but as I recall the firearms Police and Armies of government killed more people last century than any civilian actions combined.

Call me a right-wing extremist, but as I recall the firearms Police and Armies of government killed more people last century than any civilian actions combined.

True, but a large majority of those were from international wars, an armed populace wouldn't have helped in the slightest.




Then feel free to go live in Great Britain then. But we, as Americans, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and if you were a believer in the Constitution, you'd believe in that right as well.

Personally, I don't care if I have to stockpile weapons illegally in the middle of nowhere -- no one's taking my guns.

If I remember, that right was laid out in an amendment. You know, one of those things that can be changed if you don't like it. Which is integral to the way it was designed and has been done many times since its inception.

The following:

1010102, A Better Society, Adam Maji, Amaji, America 2050, America0, Atheica, Bellum Addo, Cascadia_0, Christendom0, Corporato, Dark Americanada, Doomingsland, God339, Gun Manufacturers, Java-Minang, Khaotia, Leninkov, Mae Anarchy, Magdha, Markreich, Sanmartin, Soviestan, Soyut, The Thon, Unalibertas, UnitedTerranFederation, UNIverseVERSE, [NS]RhynoDD

Are either all crazy, voted for every option, or read "No gun control at all!" as "No guns at all!".

The following:

1010102, A Better Society, Adam Maji, Amaji, America 2050, America0, Atheica, Bellum Addo, Cascadia_0, Christendom0, Corporato, Dark Americanada, Doomingsland, God339, Gun Manufacturers, Java-Minang, Khaotia, Leninkov, Mae Anarchy, Magdha, Markreich, Sanmartin, Soviestan, Soyut, The Thon, Unalibertas, UnitedTerranFederation, UNIverseVERSE, [NS]RhynoDD

Are either all crazy, voted for every option, or read "No gun control at all!" as "No guns at all!".

In my case, I voted for every option. :D

Then feel free to go live in Great Britain then. But we, as Americans, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and if you were a believer in the Constitution, you'd believe in that right as well.

Personally, I don't care if I have to stockpile weapons illegally in the middle of nowhere -- no one's taking my guns.

Oh ok, because if you have a legit critizism of the Constitution, that is the exact same as believing in facism. Thats almost as valid of an arguement as if you dont support the Bush administration you hate America.

And, its an ammendement. You know that the only reason the Constitution is worth more than the paper its written on is because it CAN be changed through ammendments right? Its easy. You just make an ammendment that revokes the 2nd ammendment. Thats what we did we prohibition.

Oh ok, because if you have a legit critizism of the Constitution, that is the exact same as believing in facism. Thats almost as valid of an arguement as if you dont support the Bush administration you hate America.

And, its an ammendement. You know that the only reason the Constitution is worth more than the paper its written on is because it CAN be changed through ammendments right? Its easy. You just make an ammendment that revokes the 2nd ammendment. Thats what we did we prohibition.

There will never be enough votes to get rid of the second amendment. I'll bet money on that. And speaking of Prohibition, that amendment got repealed.

There will never be enough votes to get rid of the second amendment. I'll bet money on that. And speaking of Prohibition, that amendment got repealed.

Thats what I mean.

Thats what I mean.

That's what you mean? About what? A four word response to me doesn't really give me a lot of information as to your train of thought.

Then feel free to go live in Great Britain then. But we, as Americans, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and if you were a believer in the Constitution, you'd believe in that right as well.

Personally, I don't care if I have to stockpile weapons illegally in the middle of nowhere -- no one's taking my guns.
And it doesn't occur to you that you're glorious pieces of paper you call a constitution, could be flawed in it's reasoning? I seem to recall that's why you have amendments you know, to fix the flaws that were in it.

Any Constitution, charter, or what not, is a living, breathing document, or else the nation that holds it up is already dead in the eyes of history.

That's what you mean? About what? A four word response to me doesn't really give me a lot of information as to your train of thought.

Repealing ammendments. Thats the word I was looking for.

Repealing ammendments. Thats the word I was looking for.

Ah, ok.

I believe an armed populace is important to protecting the citizenry from potential tyranny, and as such I'm skeptical of gun bans and severe restrictions on gun ownership.
I admit I'm surprised, but I agree wholeheartedly with Soheran on this one.