Colorado School Shooting

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 20, 2018
1,547
239
193
77539
"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"

That's all it says, so your answer is in the interpretation of what is "constitutional". I think that the current interpretation by the Supreme Court, is that machine guns, artillery, and mechanized units are considered not part of a "regulated Militia". Personally, I do not think it is okay for citizens to own machine guns, or grenade launchers, or tanks (for that matter). I do think that citizens should be able to own weapons that are equal to whatever weapons police use, as I consider the police a part of the militia, and not of the armed forces. But that is just me.
I thought we had already established that some people own these weapons? If you have the money and can jump through the legal hoops, they can be owned.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,724
24,011
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I've found this crowd to be better at asking questions than answering them.

I answered your questions, and defended the misquotes and misinterpretations. Someone please tell me if there are any limits to the 2nd amendment. Do you think it's okay for citizens to own machine guns and grenade launchers?

At what age?
I'll answer but first I'm a little curious about why you're asking. I've not heard one Republican lawmaker pushing for this, nor have I heard any conservative judges indicate they would rule this way if given the chance. The gun control debate right now is centered around semi-automatic firearms and magazine capacity. I seriously doubt you have to worry about grenade launchers and .50 cal browning's mounted on the back of pick up trucks in the foreseeable future. So why bring them up in this debate, unless you're just satisfying your curiosity. Fair enough, if so.

As to your questions, I do believe that fully automatic weapons should be legal to own, the same as semi-automatic weapons.....I disagree with you that guns aren't a deterrent to tyranny and for that reason alone, I would make fully auto legal. Not so sure about grenade launchers, but probably not. Even if those were legal, I imagine the grenades that it fired would be highly regulated similar to any other kind of explosive...I mean some people can buy dynamite and anybody can buy a sling shot.....I don't think it would be much different than that. I'll tell you this though, even if grenade launchers were legal, I would still be more worried that a nut job could buy fertilizer than I would be that they could buy a civilian model Springfield M79 grenade launcher.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,315
2,579
1,743
So Cal
No I didn't, I specifically answered it. It's time consuming enough to defend my position I shouldn't have to keep reposting things people misquoted or misunderstood.



The problem with many of the gun people is they are extremists. Extremists don't know they are extremists. People point out Katrina or the riots as if you need an arsenal of guns to fight of the hoard of zombies. Honestly an old guy sitting in his house with a few handguns or shotgun is probably pretty safe from the zombie people.

For those of you prepping for end times, buy more water and less bullets. You'll thank me later.

As far as keeping the government in check, it's not 1850 anymore. The government has drones, armed robotic things, missiles and laser guided stuff. They aren't scared of you, except scared of your vote. Okay lets say collectively all the gun owners together maybe? Look how divisive the country is on matters like transgendered bathrooms. You think the inner city gang members, the suburbanites with hunting rifles and the country people are going to band together to restore a constitutional republic? I don't even want to know what kind of crapstorm that would be.

All I'm saying there is room for debate and pragmatism should have as loud a voice as extremism.
this stuff is absolutely assine..... THE PROBLEM is that the people OPPOSING guns are extremists, and they freely admit it, and they don't care. They don't care about the Constitution, they don't care about my needs or my concerns, they only care about their opinion about how many rights they will allow me to have.

And honestly.... an old guy with a few handguns and a shotgun is not even sufficient against a home invasion robbery, much less defending your stuff from hoards of the hungry that have guns simply because it's easier to take your water than store their own.

I have two 55 gallon drums of water, do I need more than that? I need guns BECAUSE i have the water, not instead of. What planet do you live on? Your comments are ridiculous.

The government is afraid of mass murder and expansive bloodshed. They absolutely are afraid. They backed down several times when facing armed citizens... and they always will.

Citizens with guns can force the government to either kill it's own people or back down.

Countries where citizens do not have guns get slaughtered by their government (The square in China, Venezuela, Iran --- the images are still very vivid in our minds).

your statements and your arguments are flat out false and ill-conceived. They are flat out dangerous.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,691
3,207
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
First off I reject the term "gun violence" because all violence is violence...a gun is just a tool as is a spear, a knife, a bomb, poison, a hand grenade and any other way people would kill if they didn't have guns. People kill...guns don't do that on their own.

Secondly, yes Australia and New Zealand are far more homogeneous than is the USA at this point in our history....so are most/all of the European countries you mentioned.

As far as belief in God...What I believe is that, they, much like in our culture don't buy in to self sacrifice that is taught by means of Jesus and NO Other "god." He died for his friends and for all humanity, even those who don't deserve it OR even believe it...he didn't kill to further his ends but let himself be killed by others who had evil intent. The point being that "religion" is just that...belief in and the following of Jesus is a whole different thing than "religion." Christianity in it's purest "Orthodox" form is a self sacrificing mindset that would never condone, nor behave in a way that took the lives of others.
Sorry to interject but you'll be happy to know that I'm getting HIS money's worth. His sacrifice wasn't in vain.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,691
3,207
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
We've come full circle. I waded into this mess by pointing out it is much harder to get fully automatic guns than it used to be. @CaliforniaCowboy managed to combine arrogance and being flat wrong in the same post, but we already knew he is a bit unhinged.

I usually avoid the gun debate because the slightest stance outside the echo chamber of more guns = safer society results in having to defend myself over semantics.

You guys figure it out and continue to dismiss the loss of innocent lives as the inevitable casualty of a free society.
Ouch. That's the rub. There will be casualties of innocent lives in a free society. Bush was wrong when he said we will wipe out terrorism. I can't understand what causes someone to stomp on the gas and ram a parade, but with free will, all you can do is teach goodness and hope it catches.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,291
13,678
1,743
I'll answer but first I'm a little curious about why you're asking..
I'm asking because I was asked specifics about my position and spent the rest of the day defending an opinion that I don't think is very extreme. I was interested to see if those espousing the 2nd amendment have any exceptions or they believe any gun to any citizen is okay.

Sometimes it's easier to throw stones at the other guy's opinion than defend your own.
 
Last edited:

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,691
3,207
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
I'll answer but first I'm a little curious about why you're asking. I've not heard one Republican lawmaker pushing for this, nor have I heard any conservative judges indicate they would rule this way if given the chance. The gun control debate right now is centered around semi-automatic firearms and magazine capacity. I seriously doubt you have to worry about grenade launchers and .50 cal browning's mounted on the back of pick up trucks in the foreseeable future. So why bring them up in this debate, unless you're just satisfying your curiosity. Fair enough, if so.

As to your questions, I do believe that fully automatic weapons should be legal to own, the same as semi-automatic weapons.....I disagree with you that guns aren't a deterrent to tyranny and for that reason alone, I would make fully auto legal. Not so sure about grenade launchers, but probably not. Even if those were legal, I imagine the grenades that it fired would be highly regulated similar to any other kind of explosive...I mean some people can buy dynamite and anybody can buy a sling shot.....I don't think it would be much different than that. I'll tell you this though, even if grenade launchers were legal, I would still be more worried that a nut job could buy fertilizer than I would be that they could buy a civilian model Springfield M79 grenade launcher.
You could buy dynamite at the general store 90 years ago with no ID.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,291
13,678
1,743
You could buy dynamite at the general store 90 years ago with no ID.
Which leads back to the thing I posted earlier in this thread. Before any get's all worked up it was just something of interest because it reminds us crazy didn't start in our generation. Some nut set off bombs in a grade school back in 1927 killing 38 school kids and 6 adults. He was seen smiling as he drove away.

Crazy goes back to the beginning.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,521
31,973
1,743
oklahoma city
You know I don't think you are ignorant or dishonest...in no way do I think that...in fact those who search for answers are really good and wise people and I think you are a seeker of knowledge, just as I am. I just think the specific term "gun violence" is political rhetoric or at least has been used that way more often than not. I'm not afraid that the government will take away my one Pistol Pete style double barrel shotgun but I'm into our Oklahoma heritage and personal rights and think that most people who own guns are non-violent and aren't the issue.

I and you can both be "good guys" and disagree and even think one of us is/are being disingenuous...we can even insult one another...we shouldn't, but it's all in how these debates go sometimes...I'm actually sorry that I get myself locked in these things as they typically never change opinion...so it's sort of pointless banter. Also, regarding my grammar...that's why I married an English teacher. ;-)

Bottom line, I sincerely do hope you are having a good transition back here in the states and that all is well with you and your family. The real absurd thing is we had this same heated debate a few years ago about this same term...lol, looks like we both changed our stance a ton in that time! ;):whistle::laugh: Also, I'm sorry my language was offensive and you felt called names...I should be less spiteful in my arguments as that is not a good way to win friends...which is far more important than arguments. Sorry...Still I conclude that I'm right...and you are wrong on this one. :D...You feel you are right and that's ok as well.
Ask your English teacher wife if the term "gun violence" can denote blame of the gun for violence. Please have her explain to me how it can. Because I have looked and cannot find any justification for your position at all.

Ok, if we get to feel what is right is right, whenever you say Jesus, I will reject that as meaning the Christian God. I feel you mean Allah. So, any mention of Jesus from you I am going to take as really meaning Allah. You can say in many posts that you simply mean Jesus, but I have read that Jesus was a prophet in Islam so I know it means Allah.
 

Rack

Federal Marshal
Oct 13, 2004
19,092
8,653
1,743
Earth
Ask your English teacher wife if the term "gun violence" can denote blame of the gun for violence. Please have her explain to me how it can. Because I have looked and cannot find any justification for your position at all.

Ok, if we get to feel what is right is right, whenever you say Jesus, I will reject that as meaning the Christian God. I feel you mean Allah. So, any mention of Jesus from you I am going to take as really meaning Allah. You can say in many posts that you simply mean Jesus, but I have read that Jesus was a prophet in Islam so I know it means Allah.
This all started with your impression that I was rejecting your use of what I see as a political term. You can use whatever terms you want...the fact that I reject its use and understand it to be politically charged doesn’t mean you do or have to reject the term as well. It’s just my opinion and others as well. I do, however, have a hard time seeing how others can see the same term so drastically differently. That’s a flaw in me I guess because people are going to see things the way they want and argue hard for their position.

Bottom line, I don’t even know if you think gun control is the right way to address our violence problem. It was silly on my part to state and restate my option and to continue this argument Over and over. I’m done being silly. Have a nice evening!
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,315
2,579
1,743
So Cal
I don't even have the energy to unravel this post. Go back to telling me how stupid I am because I think you can't legally own a fully automatic.
nothing to unravel.... start with trying to unravel the Constitution, that might be your only shot

It is for all intents and purposes NOT possible to get a machine gun - which you wanted to ban "as a start" - regardless of the point that automatic weapons are not used in the attacks that you're talking about.

Any gun for sale must have been manufactured before 1986 and must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records database. There are less than 500,000 full-auto weapons in circulation as opposed to the millions of semi-auto rifles.

These are essentially "collector items", which is also the one exemption that you wanted to allow (guns only for collectors).

your average joe blow cannot got out and purchase an automatic weapon, even on the black market, because they are illegal to own and purchase except under extreme circumstances - just like you are advocating for.

just like bazooka's and grenade launchers

how about you choose another constitutional right of ours that you don't like and switch to harping on that for a while....
 

swamppoke

ole 3 putt.
A/V Subscriber
Feb 11, 2004
7,430
5,818
1,743
The Sand Shaker
I thought we had already established that some people own these weapons? If you have the money and can jump through the legal hoops, they can be owned.
nothing to unravel.... start with trying to unravel the Constitution, that might be your only shot................
........how about you choose another constitutional right of ours that you don't like and switch to harping on that for a while....
Like the number of Supreme Court Justices? ;)
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,291
13,678
1,743
how about you choose another constitutional right of ours that you don't like and switch to harping on that for a while....
When I was asked my opinion on what guns should be legal I gave a vague answer, when pushed for more I was more specific. I've discovered when I ask the same question back to the more staunch 2nd amendment crowd I either get crickets... or am told fully automatic guns don't matter because that issue has already been handled. I didn't ask what the laws are, I asked what those beating up on my post think the laws should be. Here's what I have learned in this thread. You are either in favor of all guns available to all citizens which could be viewed as an uncompromising zealot, or you are an anti constitutional lefty with a slippery slope agenda. That's why you guys would rather throw stones at my opinion than give your own.

As far as other constitutional rights that's a really good point.

1st amendment: I am okay with “In God we trust” on the currency, “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance, or the 10 Commandments statue on the courthouse lawn. Would these imply a government preference for religion which could be interpreted as unconstitutional?

3rd amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure. What if a cop sees a guy grab a kid and run in his house, I’m okay with him going in without a warrant.

6th amendment: right to a speedy trial. What’s speedy? I may have a different opinion than you but the government seems to have a pretty loose interpretation.

8th amendment: Right against cruel and unusual punishment. I’m pro death penalty, some might debate that that’s a bit cruel.

Since I see shades of gray in many amendments apparently I’m quite the anti-constitutional anarchist. Apparently the 2nd amendment is the only one we can't find shades of gray in.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,315
2,579
1,743
So Cal
Like the number of Supreme Court Justices? ;)
The "number" of Justices IS NOT an individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, judicial impeachment should be much more common that it is.... and Roberts should be impeached and removed from office for his bartering with our liberties wild concocting a "deal" with the other Supreme Beings to "vote" his way on the ACA.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,315
2,579
1,743
So Cal
When I was asked my opinion on what guns should be legal I gave a vague answer, when pushed for more I was more specific. I've discovered when I ask the same question back to the more staunch 2nd amendment crowd I either get crickets... or am told fully automatic guns don't matter because that issue has already been handled. I didn't ask what the laws are, I asked what those beating up on my post think the laws should be. Here's what I have learned in this thread. You are either in favor of all guns available to all citizens which could be viewed as an uncompromising zealot, or you are an anti constitutional lefty with a slippery slope agenda. That's why you guys would rather throw stones at my opinion than give your own.

As far as other constitutional rights that's a really good point.

1st amendment: I am okay with “In God we trust” on the currency, “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance, or the 10 Commandments statue on the courthouse lawn. Would these imply a government preference for religion which could be interpreted as unconstitutional?

3rd amendment: Protection against unreasonable search and seizure. What if a cop sees a guy grab a kid and run in his house, I’m okay with him going in without a warrant.

6th amendment: right to a speedy trial. What’s speedy? I may have a different opinion than you but the government seems to have a pretty loose interpretation.

8th amendment: Right against cruel and unusual punishment. I’m pro death penalty, some might debate that that’s a bit cruel.

Since I see shades of gray in many amendments apparently I’m quite the anti-constitutional anarchist. Apparently the 2nd amendment is the only one we can't find shades of gray in.
that response is absolutely pathetic....

none of your "views" on those issues that you listed have anything to do with infringement of our liberties.

(except your stance on restricting gun rights).
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,291
13,678
1,743
that response is absolutely pathetic....

none of your "views" on those issues that you listed have anything to do with infringement of our liberties.

(except your stance on restricting gun rights).
Right. The 2nd amendment is the only one with no room for discussion. I got it. Get one of your more reasonable friends to explain it to you.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,291
13,678
1,743
Ask your English teacher wife if the term "gun violence" can denote blame of the gun for violence. Please have her explain to me how it can. Because I have looked and cannot find any justification for your position at all.

Ok, if we get to feel what is right is right, whenever you say Jesus, I will reject that as meaning the Christian God. I feel you mean Allah. So, any mention of Jesus from you I am going to take as really meaning Allah. You can say in many posts that you simply mean Jesus, but I have read that Jesus was a prophet in Islam so I know it means Allah.
Can we now dive into the semantics of "illegal alien" as opposed to alien here illegally?

Just spitballing, don't mind me.