TexasCHLforum.com

RockingRook wrote: Then again I do believe that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Do we need fully automatic weapons?

What does "need" have to do with anything?

What is to say your needs are the needs of every citizen?

SQLGeek wrote:

RockingRook wrote: Then again I do believe that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Do we need fully automatic weapons?

What does "need" have to do with anything?

What is to say your needs are the needs of every citizen?

Don't you know?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, as needed, shall not be infringed.

RockingRook wrote:Then again I do believe that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Why draw the line at 30 rounds? Why do you "need" more than 10, or 6, or 1? Why does any "normal law abiding citizen" need more than two guns, say a rifle for hunting, and a shotgun? You don't even "need" to keep those at home to use for hunting or target shooting --you can just pick them up from some government run safe storage facility. In fact, why does a normal law abiding citizen "need" a gun at all? There are millions of people in this country who don't have guns and have never needed one --what makes you so special? If you accept "need" as a criteria they you're going to have to accept someone else's definition of "need." I assure you, just as you think someone else doesn't "need" a 30 shot magazine, there are millions of people who don't think you need any guns at all, and some of those people are going to be telling you what you need and don't need. Look around, they're not going to stop with guns, they want to tell you what kind of car you need, what kind of home you need, and even what food you need to eat.

VMI77 wrote:

RockingRook wrote:Then again I do believe that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Why draw the line at 30 rounds? Why do you "need" more than 10, or 6, or 1? Why does any "normal law abiding citizen" need more than two guns, say a rifle for hunting, and a shotgun? You don't even "need" to keep those at home to use for hunting or target shooting --you can just pick them up from some government run safe storage facility. In fact, why does a normal law abiding citizen "need" a gun at all? There are millions of people in this country who don't have guns and have never needed one --what makes you so special? If you accept "need" as a criteria they you're going to have to accept someone else's definition of "need." I assure you, just as you think someone else doesn't "need" a 30 shot magazine, there are millions of people who don't think you need any guns at all, and some of those people are going to be telling you what you need and don't need. Look around, they're not going to stop with guns, they want to tell you what kind of car you need, what kind of home you need, and even what food you need to eat.

Not to mention what kind of health insurance you need!

VMI77 wrote:

RockingRook wrote:Then again I do believe that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Why draw the line at 30 rounds? Why do you "need" more than 10, or 6, or 1? Why does any "normal law abiding citizen" need more than two guns, say a rifle for hunting, and a shotgun? You don't even "need" to keep those at home to use for hunting or target shooting --you can just pick them up from some government run safe storage facility. In fact, why does a normal law abiding citizen "need" a gun at all? There are millions of people in this country who don't have guns and have never needed one --what makes you so special? If you accept "need" as a criteria they you're going to have to accept someone else's definition of "need." I assure you, just as you think someone else doesn't "need" a 30 shot magazine, there are millions of people who don't think you need any guns at all, and some of those people are going to be telling you what you need and don't need. Look around, they're not going to stop with guns, they want to tell you what kind of car you need, what kind of home you need, and even what food you need to eat.

I don't "need" a AK-47, I don't "need" a pistol grip 12 gauge, I don't "need" a 30 mag for my ruger, I want them, and that is what freedom is about. If you want to live in a "need" based society I think Cuba is still communist. In this country we still are mostly free and for the most part if you want something you can have it without proof for need. If we give up Hi-Cap Mags then we wont "need" semi-auto rifles, then we wont need semi-auto handguns, then we wont "need" "Hi-Powered sniper rifles" (any rifle), then we wont "need" shotguns. It is the first step in disarming us and we should not sit Idly by and let them strip rights from us piece by piece. If we give an inch I do believe they will take 100 miles.

RockingRook wrote:Do we need fully automatic weapons?

We need them more than we need televisions.

RockingRook wrote:I know that it is difficult to come to a compromise regarding this issue but each and every time something like Arizona happens the far left comes out of the woodwork. Unless we have our existing laws enforced and tweaked, sometime I may live to see the day when we lose all rights of gun ownership of any type.

Banning guns because of that attack is even sillier than banning religion because of the 9/11 attacks.

RockingRook wrote: Then again I do believe
that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Back when the 2nd Amendment was drafted they could not imagine the weaponry available today..

Others have answered your first question, but ill bring up a "need" for you. The rising trend of flash mobs stealing and looting. If they turned violent, that 5 shot revolver starts to look bad quick!!

RegArding yout second point, i take it you believe the first amendment shouldnt apply to tv stations? Or the fourth sbouldnt apply to you when youre in your car? After all, the founders didnt envision tvs or cars either.....

loadedliberal wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

RockingRook wrote:Then again I do believe that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Why draw the line at 30 rounds? Why do you "need" more than 10, or 6, or 1? Why does any "normal law abiding citizen" need more than two guns, say a rifle for hunting, and a shotgun? You don't even "need" to keep those at home to use for hunting or target shooting --you can just pick them up from some government run safe storage facility. In fact, why does a normal law abiding citizen "need" a gun at all? There are millions of people in this country who don't have guns and have never needed one --what makes you so special? If you accept "need" as a criteria they you're going to have to accept someone else's definition of "need." I assure you, just as you think someone else doesn't "need" a 30 shot magazine, there are millions of people who don't think you need any guns at all, and some of those people are going to be telling you what you need and don't need. Look around, they're not going to stop with guns, they want to tell you what kind of car you need, what kind of home you need, and even what food you need to eat.

I don't "need" a AK-47, I don't "need" a pistol grip 12 gauge, I don't "need" a 30 mag for my ruger, I want them, and that is what freedom is about. If you want to live in a "need" based society I think Cuba is still communist. In this country we still are mostly free and for the most part if you want something you can have it without proof for need. If we give up Hi-Cap Mags then we wont "need" semi-auto rifles, then we wont need semi-auto handguns, then we wont "need" "Hi-Powered sniper rifles" (any rifle), then we wont "need" shotguns. It is the first step in disarming us and we should not sit Idly by and let them strip rights from us piece by piece. If we give an inch I do believe they will take 100 miles.

Your words sound like agreement with the point I was attempting to make but your tone sounds like you think I'm saying the opposite. Am I misinterpreting your post or did you misinterpret mine? There is no liberty where someone else determines what you "need" --"need" is a license for authoritarians.

VMI77 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

RockingRook wrote:Then again I do believe that normal law abiding citizens have no need for a 30 shot mag. for his Glock.

Why draw the line at 30 rounds? Why do you "need" more than 10, or 6, or 1? Why does any "normal law abiding citizen" need more than two guns, say a rifle for hunting, and a shotgun? You don't even "need" to keep those at home to use for hunting or target shooting --you can just pick them up from some government run safe storage facility. In fact, why does a normal law abiding citizen "need" a gun at all? There are millions of people in this country who don't have guns and have never needed one --what makes you so special? If you accept "need" as a criteria they you're going to have to accept someone else's definition of "need." I assure you, just as you think someone else doesn't "need" a 30 shot magazine, there are millions of people who don't think you need any guns at all, and some of those people are going to be telling you what you need and don't need. Look around, they're not going to stop with guns, they want to tell you what kind of car you need, what kind of home you need, and even what food you need to eat.

I don't "need" a AK-47, I don't "need" a pistol grip 12 gauge, I don't "need" a 30 mag for my ruger, I want them, and that is what freedom is about. If you want to live in a "need" based society I think Cuba is still communist. In this country we still are mostly free and for the most part if you want something you can have it without proof for need. If we give up Hi-Cap Mags then we wont "need" semi-auto rifles, then we wont need semi-auto handguns, then we wont "need" "Hi-Powered sniper rifles" (any rifle), then we wont "need" shotguns. It is the first step in disarming us and we should not sit Idly by and let them strip rights from us piece by piece. If we give an inch I do believe they will take 100 miles.

Your words sound like agreement with the point I was attempting to make but your tone sounds like you think I'm saying the opposite. Am I misinterpreting your post or did you misinterpret mine? There is no liberty where someone else determines what you "need" --"need" is a license for authoritarians.

I agreed with your post completely My post was directed at RR and I was quoting your post as supporting arguments.

RockingRook wrote:Back when the 2nd Amendment was drafted they could not imagine the weaponry available today. I strongly believe
in the "right to bear arms" but I also think we have no right to bear tanks, howitzers etc etc.

Back when the 1st Amendment was drafted, they could not imagine the mass printing capabilities of today, and the spread of news via the Internet. By your logic, we should limit it.

RockingRook wrote:Back when the 2nd Amendment was drafted they could not imagine the weaponry available today. I strongly believe
in the "right to bear arms" but I also think we have no right to bear tanks, howitzers etc etc.

Back when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, a certain recent event had to be prominent in the memories of those doing the drafting - That of Lt. Col. Francis Smith's attempt to seize certain cannon.

This makes me believe that even howitzers are protected, while tanks are merely armed vehicles, which carry arms that are protected.

But since you would draw the line there, why not shift it a little and eliminate all guns above .49 caliber, which would cover all cannon, right?

Does anyone remember a number of years ago there was a movie, the name of which I don't remember, but it stared James Garner as an army seargent who owned a surplus Sherman tank and kept it in his garage on base. Anyway in the movie Garner's son was locked up by an overly authoritarian local police chief so Garner showes up at the police station with the tank and makes a successful jail break. The rest of the movie is about how he and his son, with the tank struggle to make it to the county line where the chief's authority ends. Very good movie in my opinion but it illustrates, tongue-in-cheek why the second amendment exists.

I think everyone that wants one should keep a sherman tank in their garage. Heck, they get better gas milage than a Hummer and have better towing capability.

My 2c.

Gerry

Gyrogearhead wrote:Does anyone remember a number of years ago there was a movie, the name of which I don't remember, but it stared James Garner as an army seargent who owned a surplus Sherman tank and kept it in his garage on base. Anyway in the movie Garner's son was locked up by an overly authoritarian local police chief so Garner showes up at the police station with the tank and makes a successful jail break. The rest of the movie is about how he and his son, with the tank struggle to make it to the county line where the chief's authority ends. Very good movie in my opinion but it illustrates, tongue-in-cheek why the second amendment exists.

I think everyone that wants one should keep a sherman tank in their garage. Heck, they get better gas milage than a Hummer and have better towing capability.

My 2c.

Gerry

I would love to have a tank. It would sure make my commute here in Austin a little easier as I don't think anyone would try to cut me off anymore.

Gyrogearhead wrote:Does anyone remember a number of years ago there was a movie, the name of which I don't remember, but it stared James Garner as an army seargent who owned a surplus Sherman tank and kept it in his garage on base. Anyway in the movie Garner's son was locked up by an overly authoritarian local police chief so Garner showes up at the police station with the tank and makes a successful jail break. The rest of the movie is about how he and his son, with the tank struggle to make it to the county line where the chief's authority ends. Very good movie in my opinion but it illustrates, tongue-in-cheek why the second amendment exists.

I think everyone that wants one should keep a sherman tank in their garage. Heck, they get better gas milage than a Hummer and have better towing capability.

My 2c.

Gerry

The name of the movie is "Tank" and I agree, is was pretty good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088224/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;