Bushmaster

[Xavier_Onassis]

You just said that you would. Read your own stupid posts.

[sirs]

I did.  Rest assured, I wouldn't be....making you wrong, yet again

[Plane]

That would be because you are apparently too damn stupid to see the connection. What politicians always do is they try to make doing something that requires no action at all (such as letting all the pioneers keep their hunting rifles) into some Great Humanitarian Cause.

It would have been both impossible and stupid to try to confiscate all those single shot rifles and dueling pistols from the citizens in 1780.

I am all for everyone having the right to bear those same weapons today.

You are coming along !

Shall we agree that the modern equivelent of what they had then is what we should have now?

After all we don't use horses for basic transport in the civilian world nor in the military.

In George Washingtons day there was several times the firepower in private hands as there was in the possession of the military.

And most of the founders thought it was a good idea that the public be more deadly than the government.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I will agree that everyone can have a black powder, one shot muzzle loading gun of technology no more modern than 1780 .

That is all the Founding Fathers had in mind and everyone knows this.

[Plane]

I will agree that everyone can have a black powder, one shot muzzle loading gun of technology no more modern than 1780 .

That is all the Founding Fathers had in mind and everyone knows this.

No .
Clearly the foundig fathes were pleased with the fact on the ground , that the people ownd more forepower than tthe government.

[sirs]

Ooooo....touche', Plane       

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not convinced that any ban on wepons can accomplish this, one of the worst cases ,  of this sort,  in the world happened in a European Country with tougher law than we have , the perpetrator was willing to drive across Europe to obtain his wepon.

======================================
There was only ONE such incident in Norway in 50 years or more. We have massacres yearly.

This is a classic example of making the perfect (no massacres) the enemy of the good (practically no massacres).

[sirs]

2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution......the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed.  You're not going to ban guns in this country, no matter how much jumping up & down you do, while holding your breath.  You can spout irrational nonsense like "if there are no guns there are no crimes with guns", but that doesn't change:
- U.S. citizens have just as much a right to own firearms as they do to verbally trash their president
- that more lives are saved in this country using a gun, then those taken
- that law abiding civilians on scene of a mass shooting, with their gun stop a minimum of 10+deaths, than if its the Police that are 1st on scene
- that areas with more permissive gun laws have lower violent crime, than those with far stricter gun laws
- that nearly all these mass shootings occur in areas where guns are severely restricted, if not banned, from the law abiding good guys

Those are all FACTS.  Not mine, not Plane's, not Cu4's, just FACTS, that refute the ongoing asinine notion that simply less guns means less crime

[Xavier_Onassis]

They are not facts.

They would have to be true to be facts.

[sirs]

Which they are both.  As I said, ignorance heads the class for the left, when it comes to guns and their use in this country

[Xavier_Onassis]

No one has called up a militias since the Civil War. The fact that it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights does not mean that it actually exists.

For it to exist, the very least that has to happen is that the government (state or federal) has to announce that it exists and the terms under which it can be called up.

[sirs]

You can choose not to believe the truth about gun use in this country, and ignore the facts, as they currently have been referenced many a time in here.  You can try to deflect with the ongoing debate about militias, when the Supreme Court has already clarified it, not to mention the consistency within the Bill of Rights that clearly references individual rights.  I get it, these facts are....inconvenient to how evil guns are supposed to be, and how lunatic gun owners are supposed to be.

This country was founded on breaking away from an oppressive Givernment, and why the 2nd amendment is so important to each and every one of us, as are the other 9 amendments. 
 
So, yea, you can do all that....it still doesn't change any of the facts already layed out.  But if it makes you feel better.....as that cliche' goes, ignorance is indeed bliss

[Plane]

No one has called up a militias since the Civil War. The fact that it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights does not mean that it actually exists.

For it to exist, the very least that has to happen is that the government (state or federal) has to announce that it exists and the terms under which it can be called up.

That sounds doable.

And it gives the government a chance and an excuse to eveluate the militia members , having a militia suitability file on everyone.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no use for any such militia. Weapons are very expensive and complicated, They were used in the past to punish Indian raiders, and were somewhat useful in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American  War. They were more a nuisance than a benefit in the Civil War, since they called up militiamen for periods of up to one year. When the time was up, they went home, whether the war was over or not. Sometimes they just up and quit. There was no serious penalty for desertion.

No one is going to reestablish any militias in this country unless we are invaded.

I see that the popularity of the inane film Red Dawn (in which the US is invaded by Nicaraguans and Cubans) has been remade. This time, we have been invaded by North Koreans.

Duh.

[sirs]

I think Plane's point went right over Xo's head