Gun Control Debate - Arnold, MO

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Arnold, MO.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Arnold opposes
Oppose
 
29
Support
 
1

Vote now in Arnold:

Comments
21 - 40 of 50 Comments Last updated -
Sam I Am

Cherokee Village, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 22, 2013
 
It's not gun control It's people control.

Obama and all his puppets = Lying POS
doody

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 25, 2013
 
CZ wrote:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....the Constitution is very clear.
Nobody follows the Constitution any longer. Not the NSA, not congress, not judges, not the President. Bush said it was just a piece of paper.
Law

La Vista, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jul 9, 2013
 
MusicLover wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me preface what I'm about to say with this: I have no problem with Americans having the right to bear arms. It's not because I lie awake at night worrying about Syria invading the U.S.- I just don't see them putting together a naval armada and storming the beaches of Rhode Island. They may nuke us but having a 100 round magazine full of armor piercing ammo for my AK-47 isn't going to make much difference in that situation.
Armor-piercing ammo? Talk about a non-issue.
MusicLover wrote:
I think people have the right to protect themselves and their families.
As an aside I will say I'm not convinced I have the right to kill a kid breaking into my pick-up trying to steal my wife's favorite Taylor Swift CD.
Who said you did?
MusicLover wrote:
They might deserve a medal for that! Certainly the death penalty seems a little harsh.
I'm posting on this thread to get your views on if there should be any line between legal and illegal firearms.
Theere is no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" firearms. Firearms have no legal standing in a court of law.
MusicLover wrote:
If there is such a line where you draw it? What kinds of ordnance should individuals be allowed to own?
The 2nd Amendment was clear in its use of the word 'arms' even though ordnance existed at the time of its ratification.
MusicLover wrote:
Is there a particular type of weapon that even Wayne LaPierre acknowledges as unnecessary for a private citizen to keep under his mattress?
Such as?
MusicLover wrote:
Sawed off shotguns?
Why not? They were used in WWI
MusicLover wrote:
Armor piercing bullets?
(My kid is a street cop and I gotta tell you I'm not thrilled that anyone can buy ammunition that will punch through her body armor.)
First, armor piercing bullets are a non-issue. They were part of a political ploy to enact control on ammunition beyond just that.
Your daughter's "body armor" is no doubt Kevlar. A 30-.06 will penetrate Kevlar body armor.
MusicLover wrote:
Fully automatic rifles?
Those are available to those willing to go through the background check and pay for the $200 stamp. When was the last time you read or heard of a crime comimited with a full-auto rifle?
MusicLover wrote:
Street sweepers? Machine guns? Tank killing mines?
I touched on machine guns. Why are you bringing up mines? Quite the strawman.
MusicLover wrote:
What about the next step up in power? Does that lying pos Obama have the right to stop me from saving my Christmas bonuses for a couple of years and buying hand grenades? Mortars? Auto-fire canons like the GSh-6-23, which has a rate of fire of over 10,000 rounds per minute? Sarin gas? Biological weapons?
Damn, that's quite the imagination you have there. What does Obama have to do with anything?
MusicLover wrote:
I'll never be able to afford any of them but if Rush, the Koch brothers or even some rich liberal Hollywood pinko scum wanted one I'm sure they could find someone to sell it to them.
Yeah, in that fertile (as in manure-rich) mind of yours, I'm sure you can sprout all kinds of scenarios.
MusicLover wrote:
I hope you all understand my question. It's not whether people should be able to bear arms. It's what arms they should be allowed to bear? Thanks.
Allowed? As in controlled by the government you genuflect to?
Music Lover

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 15, 2013
 
Law wrote:
<quoted text>

There is no such thing as "legal" or "illegal" firearms. Firearms have no legal standing in a court of law.
Fire arms have no legal standing? What in the hell are you talking about? Of course they don't. And there are illegal firearms. Sawed off shotguns are illegal.

<quoted text>The 2nd Amendment was clear in its use of the word 'arms' even though ordnance existed at the time of its ratification.
<quoted text>

Again, what the hell are you talking about? If the 2nd Amendment was clear in its use of the word 'arms' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Such as?
<quoted text>
Why not? They were used in WWI
<quoted text>

So was mustard gas. You're an idiot.

<quoted text> First, armor piercing bullets are a non-issue. They were part of a political ploy to enact control on ammunition beyond just that.
Your daughter's "body armor" is no doubt Kevlar. A 30-.06 will penetrate Kevlar body armor.
<quoted text>

Your comment makes me feel so much better. You're saying that since a 30-.06 round will penetrate her armor it's okay to sell ammunition specifically designed to do so?

<quoted text>
I touched on machine guns. Why are you bringing up mines? Quite the strawman.
<quoted text>

I'm bringing up mines because I want to know if people think citizens should be able to buy them. Putting a few rows of surplus Claymore M18A1's in my yard would sure help keep the feds out when they come to confiscate my mustard gas.

<quoted text>
Yeah, in that fertile (as in manure-rich) mind of yours, I'm sure you can sprout all kinds of scenarios. <quoted text>

Do you have any answer regarding whether the 2nd Amendment allows citizens with enough resources to arm themselves with the kind of heavy duty military hardware I mentioned?

<quoted text>Allowed? As in controlled by the government you genuflect to?
Yeah, that's it. I genuflect to the government. What in the hell does that even mean? Which government? Reagan's? After he left the presidency he supported the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. Both passed during Clinton's presidency. George I? He resigned his NRA membership in protest of its policies. In 1968 he voted for the Gun Control Act.

I still don't think you answered the question of where - or if - you draw the line in the kind of weapons citizens should be allowed to own. What do you say?
Law

La Vista, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jul 15, 2013
 
Music Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's it. I genuflect to the government. What in the hell does that even mean? Which government? Reagan's? After he left the presidency he supported the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. Both passed during Clinton's presidency. George I? He resigned his NRA membership in protest of its policies. In 1968 he voted for the Gun Control Act.
I still don't think you answered the question of where - or if - you draw the line in the kind of weapons citizens should be allowed to own. What do you say?
The 2nd Amendment is clear.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Law

La Vista, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jul 15, 2013
 
Music Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's it. I genuflect to the government. What in the hell does that even mean? Which government? Reagan's? After he left the presidency he supported the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. Both passed during Clinton's presidency. George I? He resigned his NRA membership in protest of its policies. In 1968 he voted for the Gun Control Act.
I still don't think you answered the question of where - or if - you draw the line in the kind of weapons citizens should be allowed to own. What do you say?
And both Reagan and George I have the luxury of 24-hour Secret Service protection with people armed with many of the same guns you would ban.
Irony, anyone?
Music Lover

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jul 16, 2013
 
Law wrote:
<quoted text>And both Reagan and George I have the luxury of 24-hour Secret Service protection with people armed with many of the same guns you would ban.
Irony, anyone?
You guys keep saying that I want to ban weapons. My original question was, and still is, are there any weapons, mechanical, biological, or chemical that YOU would ban?
Law

La Vista, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jul 16, 2013
 
Music Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys keep saying that I want to ban weapons.
Go back and show me the post where I said that.
Music Lover wrote:
My original question was, and still is, are there any weapons, mechanical, biological, or chemical that YOU would ban?
The 2nd Amendment was quite clear in its affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you feel the need to prop up strawmen?
Music Lover

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jul 16, 2013
 
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and show me the post where I said that.
<quoted text>The 2nd Amendment was quite clear in its affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you feel the need to prop up strawmen?
Seriously Law, I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean when you say I'm propping up strawmen?
Answers

Cazadero, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jul 17, 2013
 
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

--Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 1788
Music Lover

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jul 17, 2013
 
Answers wrote:
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...
Interesting quote. Is it your opinion then that any weapon available to today's soldiers, which of course includes everything from pocket knives up to and including nukes and biological/chemical weapons, should also be available to any citizen with the resources to buy them?

How do you respond to the argument that limitations have been placed on the exercise of the other freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? To use an old example, should it be legal to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire!"?
Answers

Odense, Denmark

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jul 17, 2013
 
Music Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting quote. Is it your opinion then that any weapon available to today's soldiers, which of course includes everything from pocket knives up to and including nukes and biological/chemical weapons, should also be available to any citizen with the resources to buy them?
How do you respond to the argument that limitations have been placed on the exercise of the other freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? To use an old example, should it be legal to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire!"?
First and foremost. Our founders used something we seem to have misplaced today. Common sense. They assumed people would continue to use it. That was probably one of their greatest faults by not writing that into our Constitution. Something along the lines of "our intent at the time, registered in the many writings we have on all these various subjects. If you can open the door to enter, it's probably what we meant. If you have to tunnel under 6 buildings, cut through steel reinforced concrete, climb 8 flights of blocked stairs, shine halogen lights through a magnifying glass to see something, it's NOT what we meant.

Nukes aren't technically available to our soldiers. Nukes are also indiscriminate in killing. Including civilians. Just ask the Japanese. Sure, our founders had and used cannons. But they targeted the enemy. Not innocent men, women and children. They didn't have to spell out rules of engagement, as that thing called "common sense" was used. And yes, there were those that stepped outside those sundries, as history is repleat with those like that, including our country, and it was highly criticized by those with honor.

These "weapons of war" should be restricted to common sense. How many of us have the resources to own an armed jet fighter and the means to maintain it? Or a battleship? Think "common sense".

Best point, though, is that we don't have the 2nd Amendment to shoot deer or rabbits, protect our homes from burglars, or defend against an invading army.(Although firearms can be used for each of these.) It was put in place to give us the strentgh to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. That the immense numbers of armed citizens would give pause to any thoughts of a government raising an army to control the people.

And as to yelling fire in a crowded theatre, that would likely injure innocent people due to the panic that would ensue and the conditions of the venue. Crowded and poorly lit. Easy to stumble and get trampled. It's a thin line, but one I wouldn't cross. When your actions affect another negatively and especially physically, that should be restricted.
Really

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jul 17, 2013
 
Letusnamenames wrote:
First off refrain from contacting me. This is the 44th time I've asked you not to contact me.
I'm on the rag 24/7. Guns are evil like me. Constitution is just a piece of paper. If I become to irrational put a muzzle on this pit bull.
No Really eh?
Music Lover

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jul 17, 2013
 
Just so I'm clear, you're saying common sense is the touchstone by which we as a society should decide which weapons citizens should own? Spread out over 300 million Americans that's a pretty vague standard. For example, personally I don't think there's any common sense reason to own a large capacity magazine. Do you? If just the two of us can't agree on what a standard of common sense would allow in this context how do you expect the rest of the country to? We need to be a little more specific in what makes a weapon beyond the pale.

The economics of producing WMD aren't any deterrent. There are many people who have the means to either build or buy chemical or biological weapons.(Which is why, of course, that they're called "the poor man's atomic bomb"). The Federation of American Scientists estimates that it would cost about $25 million to produce sarin and other nerve agents in militarily significant quantities. That's chump change for a lot of people in America. Maybe you and I can't afford them. But for $25 million Jane Fonda, Donald Trump, the Koch brothers, Kobe Bryant, Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, and probably even Justin Bieber could have their own private stockpile. How do you feel about that? Protected by the 2nd Amendment? Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment wasn't drafted by the Founders to allow The Biebs the freedom to possess any type of WMD?

I find your response to my last point, that even the First Amendment should be limited in certain limited circumstances a little ironical. You say, "When your [otherwise constitutionally protected] actions (shouting Fire! in a crowded movie theater) affect another negatively and especially physically, that should be restricted." Why is the 2nd Amendment exempt from that same type of reasoning? So we can fight off a tyrannical government which has access to unlimited supplies of vastly superior weapons? That's ridiculous.

I'm still waiting for someone to set out a bright line test. You just gave one for the First Amendment. I liked it. Can we apply the same test to the right to bear arms?

I'm really not totally against the right of people to protect themselves. It's where to draw the line on the equipment they can use to do it that fascinates me.
obama mama

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jul 17, 2013
 
Letusnamenames wrote:
First off refrain from contacting me. This is the 44th time I've asked you not to contact me.
I'm on the rag 24/7. Guns are evil like me. Constitution is just a piece of paper. If I become to irrational put a muzzle on this pit bull.
Can't we just get along and tear down this wall girlie?
remember when

Arnold, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jul 17, 2013
 
I'm also obama mama. Look at that. If I could get paid for every name I post under I would be a millionaire.
Willie

Imperial, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jul 18, 2013
 
Democrats prefer unarmed victims.
Music Lover

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jul 18, 2013
 
Willie wrote:
Democrats prefer unarmed victims.
Willie, don't hurt yourself trying to come up with any more insightful aphorisms. Let me help you out by providing a few I found on another website. Try to remember as many of them as you can. The next time you get into a discussion about the 2nd Amendment - say, while you're standing outside your favorite movie house at midnight waiting for the next showing of Batman - you can use them to impress your friends.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
If guns are outlawed, can we use grenades?
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
84,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
911 - Government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love gun control - it makes their jobs safer.
If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.
"...A government by the people, for the people..."
Law

La Vista, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jul 18, 2013
 
Music Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Law, I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean when you say I'm propping up strawmen?
When you resort to bringing up nuclear and chemical weapons.
Law

La Vista, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jul 18, 2013
 
Music Lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting quote. Is it your opinion then that any weapon available to today's soldiers, which of course includes everything from pocket knives up to and including nukes and biological/chemical weapons, should also be available to any citizen with the resources to buy them?
There's those strawmen again. Is that the best you have?
Music Lover wrote:
How do you respond to the argument that limitations have been placed on the exercise of the other freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? To use an old example, should it be legal to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire!"?
Absolutley!! In factm there is a moral obligation to od that. Or do you prefer a theater fullof dead peple?
BTW, that is not a limitation of the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Related Topics

Arnold Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]