Bishop Hedd Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I wonder why she needs five? One is plenty A lot of people wonder why gun enthusiasts need five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I don't get where the conservative argument is coming from. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you can own guns. It says you have the right to bear arms. Now, that's a little bit ironic because generally speaking you would use a gun to kill a bear and then take the arms once it is dead. So from that perspective, I can understand why you'd think you need guns to acquire the bear arms. But honestly, you could just buy bear arms somewhere else without having to hunt, and that's safer for everybody. Furthermore, I'm sure bear arms had a purpose back in the pioneer days (scaring off mountain lions and such) but why do you need them in this day and age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 A lot of people wonder why gun enthusiasts need five. Because they're gun collectors/enthusiasts. That's as stupid as someone wondering why I have a wine cellar full of wine when I can only drink them one bottle at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I don't get where the conservative argument is coming from. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you can own guns. It says you have the right to bear arms. Now, that's a little bit ironic because generally speaking you would use a gun to kill a bear and then take the arms once it is dead. So from that perspective, I can understand why you'd think you need guns to acquire the bear arms. But honestly, you could just buy bear arms somewhere else without having to hunt, and that's safer for everybody. Furthermore, I'm sure bear arms had a purpose back in the pioneer days (scaring off mountain lions and such) but why do you need them in this day and age? Leave being crayonz to crayonz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I don't get where the conservative argument is coming from. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you can own guns. It says you have the right to bear arms. Now, that's a little bit ironic because generally speaking you would use a gun to kill a bear and then take the arms once it is dead. So from that perspective, I can understand why you'd think you need guns to acquire the bear arms. But honestly, you could just buy bear arms somewhere else without having to hunt, and that's safer for everybody. Furthermore, I'm sure bear arms had a purpose back in the pioneer days (scaring off mountain lions and such) but why do you need them in this day and age? Sage, This is the Second Amendment: "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." In this context, "bear" means to use them. Please note, I fully support your right to arm bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Leave being crayonz to crayonz. Yeah, you're right, but I thought I'd try it once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Please note, I fully support your right to arm bears. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARMoJ-9G68k Watch til the end for the part with the bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Actually the invincible bears part is toward the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Actually the invincible bears part is toward the middle. Actually, I prefer this chase scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Because they're gun collectors/enthusiasts. That's as stupid as someone wondering why I have a wine cellar full of wine when I can only drink them one bottle at a time. About a year ago, I wrote on this board that even though I do not own, nor have I ever shot, a firearm; I believe that every American should be trained in how to use one. That creates respect for the weapon and what it can do. Naturally, I got crucified for it. Nonetheless, I think that those who think the government is going to take their guns away are wrong, and that the Second Amendment needs to be preserved. There is nothing wrong with collecting guns; several of my friends have, and they are the most level-headed people I know. Again, the difference is they have respect for the weapon, because they have handled one. BTW, I still do not own a gun. Kim thinks it's a really bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 God you're an idiot. It's really about chipping away at another freedom we have in the USA and the constitution. If someone wants to legally own an assault rifle..so what? I own four and I don't hole up in my home and neither do most gun owners. I know your comeback will be but assualt rifles are used by criminals, blah, blah, blah. If you actually read the FBI's crime statistics, they are used in less than 1% of all gun crimes. Do you know what the #1 sporting rifle in the USA is? The AR-15...Used by more target shooters and small game hunters than any other gun. Maybe someday we'll get lucky and you'll shoot yourself "accidently". I think the idiots are the people who are panicking over nothing. On the list of the "top 5 priorities" for this administration there was NO mention of stupid guns. I say, go for it gun nuts. If it makes you happy, buy 'em all up. I grew up with guns. None of us ever shot anyone or much of anything for that matter unless you count clay pigeons and targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 About a year ago, I wrote on this board that even though I do not own, nor have I ever shot, a firearm; I believe that every American should be trained in how to use one. That creates respect for the weapon and what it can do. Naturally, I got crucified for it. Nonetheless, I think that those who think the government is going to take their guns away are wrong, and that the Second Amendment needs to be preserved. There is nothing wrong with collecting guns; several of my friends have, and they are the most level-headed people I know. Again, the difference is they have respect for the weapon, because they have handled one. BTW, I still do not own a gun. Kim thinks it's a really bad idea. buckeye, the logic and level-headedness you use on this board is simply unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 buckeye, the logic and level-headedness you use on this board is simply unacceptable. I agree lets get down and lets get dirty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Yeah, you're right, but I thought I'd try it once. Not a bad attempt, though. Got a chuckle out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Sage, This is the Second Amendment: "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." In this context, "bear" means to use them. Please note, I fully support your right to arm bears. Stinger Missiles are arms. ICBM's are arms. Stealth Bombers are arms. Why can't I buy any of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Stinger Missiles are arms. ICBM's are arms. Stealth Bombers are arms. Why can't I buy any of these? You can . I quit selling bridges I have decided to sell those.How many do you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Stinger Missiles are arms. ICBM's are arms. Stealth Bombers are arms. Why can't I buy any of these? Sublimely jumping the shark again, I see. In the broader sense, yes they're "arms" however they are also weapons systems which are owned by the federal government. Unfortunately for you and your newly found passion to arm yourself, you'll have to convince that particular monopoly to sell them to you. I'm sure you're crushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Stinger Missiles are arms. ICBM's are arms. Stealth Bombers are arms. Why can't I buy any of these? There are only a few Stealth Bombers in existence and the current owner of all of them is unlikely to want to sell them. There are many more ICBMs in existence, but again the current owners are unlikely to want to sell them. If you had tried a couple years ago, you may have found a willing partner in Russia. But now they seem to want to hold onto their ICBMs Stinger missles on the other hand, you can get ahold of....if the price is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Sublimely jumping the shark again, I see. In the broader sense, yes they're "arms" however they are also weapons systems which are owned by the federal government. Unfortunately for you and your newly found passion to arm yourself, you'll have to convince that particular monopoly to sell them to you. I'm sure you're crushed. They are infringing on my Second Amendment rights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 There are only a few Stealth Bombers in existence and the current owner of all of them is unlikely to want to sell them. There are many more ICBMs in existence, but again the current owners are unlikely to want to sell them. If you had tried a couple years ago, you may have found a willing partner in Russia. But now they seem to want to hold onto their ICBMs So it's perfectly legal for a civilian to own a stealth bomber or an ICBM, it's just a matter of scarcity? Stinger missles on the other hand, you can get ahold of....if the price is right Just ask George Clooney! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts