When is it right to avail oneself of the 2nd amendment?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

17 round mags are easy to manipulate and conceal and quick to change - if splat nose Palin and her ** army ever comes to impound my cat as a reprisal for laughing at boo-hoo Boehner's beer crying, I would defend her virginity equipped with 17's

Now THAT's funny.

I am glad I am not the only one that doesn't think Palin is so "hot". She looks more like a muffin-top to me.

[slim 1,525]

Tina Fey is way hotter.

[Captain Oates 911]

Now THAT's funny.

I am glad I am not the only one that doesn't think Palin is so "hot". She looks more like a muffin-top to me.

I spent 16 years single and on the wine bar razz most nights - Palin wouldn't have rated a date with me and I took a few grannies home too. I got so as I could spot a dumbo and/or bunny boiler at 100 yards at 2am.

Some times it didn't matter but most times it did. I sure wouldn't hang out in Wasilla in January on the off chance of dunking her tea bags or boning her cod and that's before she starts her witch craft rituals and casting out devils. That's the door man's job at 3am where I come from

Shudder

I liked the Arizona Sheriff and I wrote him a letter today saying what a fine man he is. Imagine me thinking that about a tough Western Sheriff with a Polish name - but I do I think he is the epitome of common sense and level headedness. I even put a first class stamp on it and that is the ultimate accolade from a Yorkshireman.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, no sensible arguments to support it just blind faith that if it's in the constitution (whetever the interpretation one decides to use) it must serve a purpose? Brilliant

Once again, can someone please point to one post I have made in all the years I have posted on VJ where I have advocated disarming US citizens and why there is this constant argument against doing something I have never advocated?

[slim 1,525]

So, no sensible arguments to support it just blind faith that if it's in the constitution (whetever the interpretation one decides to use) it must serve a purpose? Brilliant

Once again, can someone please point to one post I have made in all the years I have posted on VJ where I have advocated disarming US citizens and why there is this constant argument against doing something I have never advocated?

Will you please support why we need due process?

[Captain Oates 911]

So, no sensible arguments to support it just blind faith that if it's in the constitution (whetever the interpretation one decides to use) it must serve a purpose? Brilliant

Once again, can someone please point to one post I have made in all the years I have posted on VJ where I have advocated disarming US citizens and why there is this constant argument against doing something I have never advocated?

It's a good job the yookay isnt armed to this extent seeing as we are all fighting drunk most of the time. There would only be the Muslims and Jehovah's left.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I'm curious, how did wiki track down the origins of these rifles?

It isn't like it's a deep dark secret, Slim.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/weapons.html

From a 1996 article "Uncovering the IRA and Sinn Fein"

The two main sources of weaponry for the IRA have been the USA and Libya. The main gun-running network in the USA was controlled by a veteran Irish Republican called George Harrison. He supplied arms not only for the 'Border Campaign' (aka 'Fifties Campaign') of the IRA, which was conducted for a number of years up to 1962, but also for the campaign that started in 1969. His network was finally broken up in the early 1980s by the FBI but it is believed that weapons supplied by him are still in use.

Other gun-running attempts were made in the USA, but many ended in failure. As the table shows, the US federal agencies, especially the FBI, have become increasingly proficient at disrupting IRA arms procurement activities in the USA. (The FBI formed a special unit to concentrate on Irish paramilitaries.)

[slim 1,525]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/weapons.html

I like how you use PBS as a source. What? Couldn't find anything on NPR?

a veteran Irish Republican called George Harrison. He supplied arms

....up to 1962

.... also for the campaign that started in 1969

.... broken up in the early 1980s

See if you can google when the Barrett M-82s were first available for public sale.

it is believed that weapons supplied by him are still in use.

Believed?

[Peikko 1,575]

Will you please support why we need due process?

We don't need it. However, I could tell you why I think it's a good idea, and why I prefer to live in a society that applies the law from a principal that one is innocent until proven (with a sufficient burden of proof) guilty. You however have said that you like to own guns and that gun ownership is practically mandatory in order to be free of tyranny simply because that's what (you) believe the second amendment means. You have not even attempted to explain how freedom is better in the US than, for example in the UK, thanks to the second amendment. I'm still waiting.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[Captain Oates 911]

It isn't like it's a deep dark secret, Slim.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/weapons.html

From a 1996 article "Uncovering the IRA and Sinn Fein"

The two main sources of weaponry for the IRA have been the USA and Libya. The main gun-running network in the USA was controlled by a veteran Irish Republican called George Harrison. He supplied arms not only for the 'Border Campaign' (aka 'Fifties Campaign') of the IRA, which was conducted for a number of years up to 1962, but also for the campaign that started in 1969. His network was finally broken up in the early 1980s by the FBI but it is believed that weapons supplied by him are still in use.

Other gun-running attempts were made in the USA, but many ended in failure. As the table shows, the US federal agencies, especially the FBI, have become increasingly proficient at disrupting IRA arms procurement activities in the USA. (The FBI formed a special unit to concentrate on Irish paramilitaries.)

I have been to Boston only once and of course a lot of the bar staff are illegal Irish who are trapped here since 9-11 and the tightening of travel. They told me that. That community bears deep hatred for the English as do some Southern Welsh and some highland Scots. It's the British equivalent of the confederacy where they won't let the past pass away into history. It doesn't serve them any good or anyone else but there are rich Irish Americans who would jump at the chance of facilitating the killing of British soldiers and Police were it easier.

American weapons find their way to various trouble spots including South America and Ireland. In Mexico they are often enough to overwhelm the army there.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Alan the Red

[slim 1,525]

We don't need it.

Did you just type that?

However, I could tell you why I think it's a good idea, and why I prefer to live in a society that applies the law from a principal that one is innocent until proven (with a sufficient burden of proof) guilty. You however have said that you like to own guns and that gun ownership is practically mandatory in order to be free of tyranny simply because that's what (you) believe the second amendment means. You have not even attempted to explain how freedom is better in the US than, for example in the UK, thanks to the second amendment. I'm still waiting.

Why are you trying to justify something that IS with your opinion? Does your opinion (or mine, for that matter) have anything at all to do with what is and what isn't?

You've never given me the opportunity to express how freedom is better in the US than the UK because each time you've asked you've hamstrung me with how you phrase the question. "That's not gun-related" or something to that effect.

Since you've opened the floodgates I'll respond. I can gather with a group of my friends, family and neighbors and participate in a time-honored part of American heritage whenever I feel like it. I don't have to petition the government to do so, I don't have to ask their permission and I darn sure don't have to check my weapons back in when I'm done.

Additionally, I don't have to tolerate an invader - in my country or my home - because I'm at a disadvantage. I'm legally armed to deal with either situation should they arise. You, on the other hand, are at the mercy of whomever wishes to place you at a disadvantage - be that a foreign invader or one that's elected.

there are rich Irish Americans who would jump at the chance of facilitating the killing of British soldiers and Police were it easier.

How is that a crime?

American weapons find their way to various trouble spots including South America and Ireland. In Mexico they are often enough to overwhelm the army there.

Are those the same ones that were bought through "straw man" purchases at gun shows and then smuggled across the borders?

Did your boy George Harrison do all that too? Man, he must've been really, really, REALLY good. What, with time travel and all.

[Captain Oates 911]

borders?

Did your boy George Harrison do all that too? Man, he must've been really, really, REALLY good. What, with time travel and all.

Never underestimate the power of a Beatle from Liverpool

As for the 'gun behind every blade of grass', there won't be a blade of grass in the next war....

That junk belongs to a Japanese guy in the 1930's - eighty years ago. It's not valid. Look how many guns the American military has and it can't crush little poor countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. The Chinese could mount a 400 million man army - just them !

Small arms won't do it anymore as the others have thermo nuclear weapons.

oh and change the law so I can go swimming with the dolphins in Cuba...

[slim 1,525]

That junk belongs to a Japanese guy in the 1930's - eighty years ago. It's not valid.

I think you mean the 1940's and I'm not sure how the validity has changed since we just fieled more sportsmen during deer season than any other country has produced in the last, oh, eighty years?

Look how many guns the American military has and it can't crush little poor countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

So on the one hand we can't use our 2A rights to stand up to the government because they have nukes and stuff yet on the other hand our military can't crush insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm no expert on hypothetical strategic endeavors, but wouldn't it be safe to say if the military can't stop them they probably couldn't stop our own people either?

The Chinese could mount a 400 million man army - just them !

How would they arm and equip those 400 million men? Even better, how would they transport them to the battlefield? That'd be like us saying we could mount a 60 million man army.

We couldn't. There's a reason China's army is no threat to us, and it has very little to do with numbers.

Small arms won't do it anymore as the others have thermo nuclear weapons.

I thought you just said people with small arms could do it? Make up your mind. Either they can or they can't.

oh and change the law so I can go swimming with the dolphins in Cuba...

There's no law against you swimming with dolphins in Cuba.

[Captain Oates 911]

I think you mean the 1940's and I'm not sure how the validity has changed since we just fieled more sportsmen during deer season than any other country has produced in the last, oh, eighty years?

So on the one hand we can't use our 2A rights to stand up to the government because they have nukes and stuff yet on the other hand our military can't crush insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm no expert on hypothetical strategic endeavors, but wouldn't it be safe to say if the military can't stop them they probably couldn't stop our own people either?

How would they arm and equip those 400 million men? Even better, how would they transport them to the battlefield? That'd be like us saying we could mount a 60 million man army.

We couldn't. There's a reason China's army is no threat to us, and it has very little to do with numbers.

I thought you just said people with small arms could do it? Make up your mind. Either they can or they can't.

There's no law against you swimming with dolphins in Cuba.

If you or I go to Cuba we commit an offence or offense. This is the only first world country that tells its citizens and residents which countries they can and cannot visit. Don't split hairs I know about the Treasury thing etc - the fact is we would be in trouble. All the Brits and Germans etc are there - we cant go as we are not free to.

We are the only first world country to track our citizens all over the world and tax them there.

The US is scared of engaging North Korea or Iran never mind China and certainly small arms don't come into the equation as far as protecting the US is concerned. That is an 80 year old idea and it's for nothing now.

Perhaps the Chinese would get us to repay our loans to them and then buy AK 47's. It would buy them enough for 400 million - easy !

The fact is that the country's safety is one big humbug as far as small arms is concerned. If we are attacked it will be by nuclear weapons.

The only other argument is the need to kill members of our own military in order to get at and to kill our own government ! That is pure fantasy world and these gun nuts would shrink 99.999% as soon as the reality dawned that this is what is involved. These gun nuts idolize the US Military and now they are they going to kill them in order to 'take back' the country ?

It really is childish - the whole thing. We will be taken over by Haitian zombies and Klingons long before that happens

I justify my gun ownership by my liking of target shooting. Nothing else. Not self defense. Not killing the military or the government - I just do it for fun and I don't even kill animals.

Unless people come over to my side an drop all the tyrant and watering trees rubbish, the gun thing will have to be dealt with more harshly than it would be otherwise. It will escalate and result in thousands of gullible simpletons causing trouble

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I justify my gun ownership by my liking of target shooting. Nothing else. Not self defense. Not killing the military or the government - I just do it for fun and I don't even kill animals.

Yeah I pretty much agree.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Sousuke