KNS story shows Williams showing his true colors

[Mike.357]

+100 Jamie, and the point of my post. The citizery should have access to the same weapons the military has. That is the whole point of the 2A.

Mike .357 - Destructive Devices are covered under the NFA and are perfectly legal to own. Its the BATFE - the E is for Explosives. So yeah, I can make the journey from owning personal guns to owning bombs - all legal to boot.

Tell me how to own a bomb, I am interested in a destructive device.

Just how does one go about doing that?

[Guest Jamie]

Tell me how to own a bomb, I am interested in a destructive device.

Just how does one go about doing that?

Try asking one of the fellows over at THR that own tanks and artillery. I don't remember who exactly it is that has 'em, but I know there's at least a couple that do.

[Mike.357]

tanks and artillery are fine, but where do you get the ammunition?

[Guest Jamie]

tanks and artillery are fine, but where do you get the ammunition?

A large ammunition dealer?

Don't really know 'cause I don't have a gun that large... biggest I have is an inch and a quarter bore cannon. I'm betting that there's a crap-load of surplus rounds sitting around somewhere though... and no doubt someone with a desire to sell 'em.

One thing I am sure of though... you'll have to fill out the paperwork and pay the tax for each round.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Jamie

[Guest crotalus01]

Yep, $200 tax per round or bomb, and there are very complicated storage requirements, and I believe (I might be wrong) you have to have a pyrotechnics/explosives license as well.

For all intents and purposes only the extremely rich would be able to afford to own or build a bomb - my point is that if you have the money and the desire you can legally do so.

[Mike.357]

so doesn't that effectively disarm the populace then?

[Guest MediaBuster]

Media,

Keep living in that fantasy of yours where non sequitors matters. I am not leaping onto your nuclear straw man either. If you think that not leaping onto your absurd thought patterns with you means I have had my ass handed to me in a debate, you obviously think like every left-winger I had to debate in college; where they thought the random and disjointed thought patterns they held were true, and failure to follow them down every straw man and non sequitor they wanted to throw in was tantamount to throwing in the towel.

You have dodged a very basic, and relevant question I posted in post #6. I am asking why you thought we had the RKBA enshrined in our constitution in the first place. If you knew the answer, you would know why we should not be restricted from carry anywhere. Pretty much everything you responded with was typical anti-gunner commentary on why it was OK to restrict our rights.

Dude, you're making yourself sound retarded & crazy.. I'm not wasting anymore time with you.. How many anti-gunners do you know that own/shoot an AR-15 & several other firearms? You have an extremist view, & all extremes are bad, whether you can grasp that fact or not. But I'm done wasting my time with someone who calls me a liberal when they are actually an extremist, when I spend more of my time writing letters to ensure our second amendment rights than most people do.. For all I care you can go walk around the capitol with a fully loaded M-16 stuff up your chute, ok pal? I'm 100% sure you'd be the first one to move out of the neighborhood if your neighbor had a working nuclear weapon & no experience handling it. You'd protest with him just like you do here, because you'd argue over toothpaste on a mirror..

Edited May 17, 2009 by MediaBuster

[towerclimber37]

Matthew, while I appreciate & share your enthusiasm for the second amendment, even I (the one who argued ferociously against any Restaurant Carry curfew or restrictions) think there are some valid reasons why we can't let just anyone walk around our Government leaders without a security clearance, & having a deadly weapon on them.. It's just common sense.. There are certainly those out there who would like to silence some of our leaders by force. So, in the interest of maintaining a society that is lawful & not anarchist, I think its reasonable to support maintaining some level of security around our leaders.

let them buy a gun and carry it..that's what we do!

the idea that they are some how "special" is a load of crap. If one of them were to get offed, you can bet your bippy that there's 20 more waiting in line to take his/her place.

[Guest crotalus01]

so doesn't that effectively disarm the populace then?

Yeah, pretty much, at least as far as military grade weaponry. If there was an uprising or revolution We the People could hold our own against the military forces when it comes to small arms, but they would F us up with JDAMS and the like.

NFA and GCA is registration, and registration is always a preemption for confiscation. I dont think we have too much to worry about with NFA weapons as they are effectively banned (most Americans will argue if you tell them its legal to own a silencer or MG). When they pass registration laws for our small arms, thats when you have to really start watching whats going on IMHO.

[Guest MediaBuster]

Yeah, pretty much, at least as far as military grade weaponry. If there was an uprising or revolution We the People could hold our own against the military forces when it comes to small arms, but they would F us up with JDAMS and the like.

NFA and GCA is registration, and registration is always a preemption for confiscation. I dont think we have too much to worry about with NFA weapons as they are effectively banned (most Americans will argue if you tell them its legal to own a silencer or MG). When they pass registration laws for our small arms, thats when you have to really start watching whats going on IMHO.

I'm never registering any gun, under any circumstances.. They can come try and take it..

[Guest Jamie]

I'm never registering any gun, under any circumstances.. They can come try and take it..

Don't delude yourself; if it ever comes to that, they won't try, they'll do.

[Guest crotalus01]

Unfortunately, Mediabuster, that precludes you from ever owning any NFA items.

[Guest MediaBuster]

Unfortunately, Mediabuster, that precludes you from ever owning any NFA items.

No, that precludes me from owning any NFA items anyone knows about..

[Guest MediaBuster]

Don't delude yourself; if it ever comes to that, they won't try, they'll do.

I'm not deluding myself. You don't know anything about my preparations, & neither will they. That's by design.. You shouldn't delude yourself about the magical powers of a Government that can't find Bin Laden, let alone everyone's guns..

[Good_Steward]

I see a lot of arguments against concealed carry in the capitol. To me. it does not make sense to restrict lawful citizens from practicing their 2nd Amendment RIGHT, no matter where they are. CCP holders have been approved by the state of Tennessee, so why shouldn't we be able to carry on ANY public land in Tennessee? The argument stating that they don't mind being restricted, because there is plenty of security is around is fine, just not with me. I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says "EXCEPT". Once again, any looney bastard that wants to assasinate someone is going to do it, or at least try, regardless of law. We ALL know that.

[Guest Jamie]

I'm not deluding myself. You don't know anything about my preparations, & neither will they. That's by design.. You shouldn't delude yourself about the magical powers of a Government that can't find Bin Laden, let alone everyone's guns..

First off, I don't think anybody really wants to find Bin Laden... but that's another matter.

As for your preparations... You might ought'a talk to a fellow by the name of Randy Weaver. I'd suggest talking to David Koresh too, but you can't since he's now a crispy critter, courtesy of the Feds.

And no, I don't think the government has any magical powers... However, I'm quite sure they have very good surveillance abilities and methods, not to mention a crap-load more weapons and people to use 'em than you do.

But you go ahead on and believe what you like. It's no skin off my nose one way or the other.

[Guest Jamie]

I see a lot of arguments against concealed carry in the capitol. To me. it does not make sense to restrict lawful citizens from practicing their 2nd Amendment RIGHT, no matter where they are.

Honestly, if I were working security in a high risk/high security area, I don't think I would want everybody and their cousin carrying weapons there, simply because of the confusion it would cause if an incident occurred. It's just too hard to weed the bad guys out from the good ones, in a hurry, without the all the armed good guys being in uniform. The likelihood of an armed civilian being injured or killed by mistake - or a cop/guard getting killed because they hesitated when he/she should have fired - is just too great.

In the end, there really are some places that nobody but a uniformed officer should be armed, I think. Not many places, mind you, but some.

[Guest HexHead]

As for the 2nd amendment... isn't it's main purpose supposed to be to ensure a government doesn't turn tyrannical? How can the populace do that without the same or better arms than the government has? I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to be the fool who tries to take on that M-1 with nothing but a pistol or "deer rifle".

The same way the French did it in WWII or the Afghans in the 80's with the Soviets.

Remember the little "Liberty" pistols. Single shot, sheet metal dropped behind the French lines for the Resistance to use. Using that cheap little pistol, they'd shoot a German sentry and take his rifle. Do that a few more times and take an MG42 and maybe a truck, or a half track. You just keep escalating.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen (sp?) were still using SMLEs and even some old Martini-Henrys. They ended up taking some pretty heavy weapons from the Soviets.

What makes you think we couldn't do the same here? And the arms the US citizenry has is a lot more sophisticated than the examples I just gave.

[Guest HexHead]

Honestly, if I were working security in a high risk/high security area, I don't think I would want everybody and their cousin carrying weapons there, simply because of the confusion it would cause if an incident occurred. It's just too hard to weed the bad guys out from the good ones, in a hurry, without the all the armed good guys being in uniform.

Wow, you assume an awful lot with that "all the armed good guys being in uniform."

[Guest HexHead]

And no, I don't think the government has any magical powers... However, I'm quite sure they have very good surveillance abilities and methods, not to mention a crap-load more weapons and people to use 'em than you do.

If our ancestors thought like you. we'd still be speaking English. :D:D

[Guest Jamie]

If our ancestors thought like you. we'd still be speaking English. :D:D

If it were still the 1700s, or even the 1940s, I could afford to think like my ancestors. It's not and I can't.

[Guest Jamie]

Wow, you assume an awful lot with that "all the armed good guys being in uniform."

Sometimes a uniform is nothing more than a dark suit and sunglasses.

[Guest Jamie]

The same way the French did it in WWII or the Afghans in the 80's with the Soviets.

Remember the little "Liberty" pistols. Single shot, sheet metal dropped behind the French lines for the Resistance to use. Using that cheap little pistol, they'd shoot a German sentry and take his rifle. Do that a few more times and take an MG42 and maybe a truck, or a half track. You just keep escalating.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen (sp?) were still using SMLEs and even some old Martini-Henrys. They ended up taking some pretty heavy weapons from the Soviets.

What makes you think we couldn't do the same here? And the arms the US citizenry has is a lot more sophisticated than the examples I just gave.

Okay, one more thing, then I'm really going to have to bail on this conversation, unless somebody wants to start a whole new thread.

One fact you overlook in all your examples is that none of those folks were fighting on their own. For that matter, neither were the people here, back in the 1700s.

The French Resistance didn't win WWII by themselves. Neither did the Afghanis. They all had other people providing support and supplies at very minimum. ( Have you forgotten the U.S. supplying weapons to the Afghanis, way back in the 80s? )

So the question comes down to who's going to help out the U.S. citizens if they decide to overthrow the government? And will they in turn need to be fought off at some point in time?

Or maybe they'll just side with the folks in D.C....

You see where this gets much more complicated than just sniping a few sentries and "liberating" a bit of equipment, especially with nothing more than small arms?

[Guest HexHead]

So the question comes down to who's going to help out the U.S. citizens if they decide to overthrow the government? And will they in turn need to be fought off at some point in time?

Or maybe they'll just side with the folks in D.C....

Okay, one last thought from me on this point then.

You never know who your friends are going to be. Sometimes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[Guest MediaBuster]

First off, I don't think anybody really wants to find Bin Laden... but that's another matter.

As for your preparations... You might ought'a talk to a fellow by the name of Randy Weaver. I'd suggest talking to David Koresh too, but you can't since he's now a crispy critter, courtesy of the Feds.

And no, I don't think the government has any magical powers... However, I'm quite sure they have very good surveillance abilities and methods, not to mention a crap-load more weapons and people to use 'em than you do.

But you go ahead on and believe what you like. It's no skin off my nose one way or the other.

Funny, you didn't mention how much that little stunt cost Bill Clinton & Reno politcally.. Oh, & four of their men.. You're not the only one here who knows what has happened in the world..