Re: Democrats on a roll...

"Top" <top@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mn.d2e07d6895b5dc54.57525@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
gringo brought next idea :

We'll get into this, if you like. My position is that since one never
fully knows what is going on inside his neighbor's mind, I do not want
him to have access to an Uzi or a .50 cal sniper rifle. I even remarked
to doug that, although I was willing to accept that HE is responsible
enough not to go on a rampage, I can't say the same for the next guy with
a penchant for man-killing weaponry. Private citizens have zero need to
own a box of grenades--imagine, if you will, the results if those
Colorado schoolkids had owned serious automatic firepower.

On full auto weapons it is my contintion that a person wanting one should
have some training on it and should a permit that states the person has
that training. LEOs and such should have the same training wether they
will be in a poisition or not. Does that keep the criminal element from
obtaning one, certainly not but we have to what be can.

In one of the three states I hold CCWs, one is required to take a safety
course, qualify on a Police range, have an insurance bond, to carry a
concealed weapon.

Myself, I don't find that too restrictive.

Contrary to Lying George Gringo, I don't advocate the public having
grenades and anti-aircraft guns.

The problem is, the 2nd Amendment says you have the -right- to keep and
bear arms.

Now, if you or I can, because of our opinions, -arbitrate- that right for
another, then we set the precedent of -any- right being arbitrated by public
opinion.

Do you want others to arbitrate your rights?

As another point, you have the right to free speech.

So -why- do you not have the right you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?

Because your rights don't extent to the right to hurt others, if there is
a reasonable expectation of it.

Here's the problem: There are tens of thousands of legally owned .50
caliber M2 rifles, and over 340,000 -legally- owned fully automatic weapons
(as George/Gringo points out) in circulation in our country.

They are remarkably well behaved, with a near zero crime violation rate,
for -decades-, in this country.

-Some- people don't like them, and want them restricted, -even though-
there's no verifiable reason to do so.

You -cannot- show these particular weapons to be an undue hazard deserving
of special legislation.

You -cannot- legislate the illegal versions of these weapons- they're
already breaking the law.

Is -this- a decision you want to be involved in, and do you want to set
the precedent that constitutional rights can be mitigated by temporary
public whim?

There are more than 20,000 gun regulation laws we barely enforce now.

Do you want to create more needless ones that burden the law abiding?

safety issue, that such weapons ought to be under lock and key. popeye
countered that HIS M1911A1 was perfectly safe locked and cocked on his

Actually, it was more of "a".


"A locked & cocked 1911A1 on the coffee table in *my living
room* -*is*- safely stored." Note the words set off in bold. "*his*
living room"... "...*is* safely stored." Nothing ambiguous about it.


Let me restate something about the gun issue and how I understand Dougs
point on the 45. If he is home the 45 is safe on the coffee table. That is
understandable. If he he either takes the 45 with him when he leaves home
it is still safe. If he secures when when he leaves him it is still safe.

You're pretty close.

My point is, what goes on inside one's house is one's own business.

A man's home is his castle.

Doug if you disagree fine, I won't argue further, I'll let dead dog's lay.

Top

E-mail me again, if you would- I lost your address when I lost my hard
drive.

Thanks!

--

Popeye

"I'm no longer concerned about seeing civilization arrest its decline
into barbarism, I'm simply enjoying the spectacle." -Vox Day
www.finalprotectivefire.com


.