Welcome to the Hatteras Owners Forum & Gallery. Sign Up or Login

Enter partial or full part description to search the Hatteras/Cabo parts catalog (for example: breaker or gauge)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Gun Controll

  1. #1

    Gun Controll

    I guess I missed the legistlation that would have banned hand guns. Supreme court shot it down from what I just read on CNN. Saw a photo of some pro gun protesters and on had a sign that stated:

    If guns kill people then do pens misspell words?

    Thought it was one of the best protest signs.

  2. #2

    Re: Gun Controll

    Quote Originally Posted by 67hat34c View Post
    I guess I missed the legistlation that would have banned hand guns. Supreme court shot it down from what I just read on CNN. Saw a photo of some pro gun protesters and on had a sign that stated:

    If guns kill people then do pens misspell words?

    Thought it was one of the best protest signs.
    Good one I can't believe they spend time on crap like that, it is part of what built this country. They should spend time on fixing real problem's. If they take our guns away well then only people that break the law will have them Duh That sure will fix the problems!!!
    Dan
    End Of The Line II
    1967 34C

    EOTL II Rebuild Web Page

    ><(((º>´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸><((((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(( (( º>¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸¸><(((º>

  3. #3

    Re: Gun Controll

    This case came from a man who challenged the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. It is good to see the court interpret the Constitution as it was written, but it's still sad to see a 5-4 decision. This should have been unanimous.
    Sky Cheney
    1985 53EDMY, Hull #CN759, "Rebecca"
    ELYC on White Lake--Montague, MI

  4. #4

    Re: Gun Controll

    Quote Originally Posted by SKYCHENEY View Post
    This case came from a man who challenged the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. It is good to see the court interpret the Constitution as it was written, but it's still sad to see a 5-4 decision. This should have been unanimous.
    Yes good point that 5-4 also threw me that is Scary!!!!!!
    Dan
    End Of The Line II
    1967 34C

    EOTL II Rebuild Web Page

    ><(((º>´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸><((((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(( (( º>¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸¸><(((º>

  5. #5

    Re: Gun Controll

    My favorite firearms quote is, "Gun control means using BOTH hands!"

  6. #6

    Re: Gun Controll

    Yeh the split 5-4 decision means all they need is a few more liberal judges and the s will start to fly even worse than it is now.

    Taking my 12 yr old daughter to the range on sunday, got her first gun about 1.5yrs ago.

    Gun controll is teaching your daughter how to shoot.

  7. #7

    Re: Gun Controll

    Two thoughts come to mind. One, this is a boon to the Democratic party: those moderates & independants who were voting their second amendment rights no longer need fear that an Obama administration (or any other) will take their guns away. This may free them up to vote based upon other issues.
    Second, this is the death knell for the NRA. No longer can they rely upon fear of the "gun grabbers" for fund raising. After the state and muncipal challanges work their way through the courts (perhaps 4 to 6 years) their reason for existance is gone and they can go back to being a hunters club again. This is somewhat analagous to the decline of the unions over the years since the federal government enshrined many of their issues into law ie. workplace safety, work hours, overtime etc.

    BTW I am a NRA member and own over 20 firearms including some described as "assault weapons".

  8. #8

    Re: Gun Controll

    Some timing, I just got this in my email.

    Enjoy,

    Captned


    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment o f force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footin g with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a poten tial attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized so ciety. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act

  9. #9

    Re: Gun Controll

    BRAVO !! It would be great to say to a mugger "Get lost!" and have him just leave. Better yet a sidearm would negate the question of being accosted in the first place. ws
    yachtsmanWILLY

    I used to think I knew everything until I found the experts HERE; Now I know I dont know SQUAT



    www.flybridge.proboards.com
    Uncensored, no nonsense boating fun for adults

  10. Re: Gun Controll

    http://www.denninger.net - Home page with blog links and more
    http://market-ticker.org - The Market Ticker

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts