Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       12-23-2012, 11:19 AM Reply
Old    sperbet            12-23-2012, 12:29 PM Reply   
Old     (westsidarider)      Join Date: Feb 2003       12-24-2012, 1:56 PM Reply   
I like that dude. Very good execution of the topic
Old     (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       12-25-2012, 2:33 PM Reply   
Why is it that 2A supporters can make such logical arguments, but the gun banners cannot: a)read and understand current gun laws and b)have their beliefs without forcing their agenda?

The 2A is a constitutional guarantee. It is not up for debate. Anybody that argues that it is no longer viable or was not written with consideration of advanced weapons needs to read a history book and understand what country they live in.

If you do not like it, move away. There is nobody making you live here.

Leeland Yee and Feinstein need to check themselves. Yee wont support a ban on shark fin soup because it infringes on the cultural rights of the Chinese, but he will try to impose a gun ban. Feinstein pushes for gun bans even though she herself has a concealed carry permit. These are our leaders?
Old     (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       12-26-2012, 7:22 AM Reply   
That dude did an excellent job with that video. Props to him. He is obviously smarter than most politicians and liberals.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-26-2012, 1:12 PM Reply   
Semi-automatic hand guns and semi-automatic riffles (assualt riffles) should absolutely be legal to own.


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.

It seems to me that this is about having well regulated and armed populous to deter tyranny.

Given our three choices: 1) no guns, 2) regulated guns and 3) unregulated guns, I think #2 is the clear choice and the debate should be over the amount of regulation.

And, the ammendment clearly states "well regulated".

IMO, we should have a "shooter's license" to own/shoot a gun much like we have a "driver's license" to drive a car. And, with this license comes regular competency testing and training. And, with a valid shooter's license, a person should be able to walk into a gun store/show and buy any gun/amo without a background check or a waiting period.

Obviously, the right to bear arms does not include aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, fighter jets, attack helicopters, gunships, drones and tanks so we will always be out armed by our military. Never the less, with "arms" we can put up a fight in hand to hand combat. A great deterant to tyranny.

Regarding home security defending against criminals, it's not clear to me that this was an objective of the 2nd ammendment. It's more a side effect of the right to bear arms as a well regulated malitia.

Last edited by diamonddad; 12-26-2012 at 1:19 PM.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       12-26-2012, 1:45 PM Reply   
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
Old     (seattle)      Join Date: Mar 2002       12-26-2012, 5:39 PM Reply   
Given our three choices: 1) 100% institutionalized whack job lunies, 2) Highly regulated wack job lunies and 3) unregulated wack job lunies allowed to interact with the populace, I think #2 is the clear choice and the debate should be over the amount of regulation.

Fixed it for ya GD.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-26-2012, 7:03 PM Reply   
Good idea Cliff.

Never the less, I would prefer trained gun owners like we mandate from our hunters (I had to take a 12hr hunters safety course to shoot a pheasant (and I enjoyed it)).

With licensing, we can eliminate the redundant background checks and the silly waiting periods.
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       12-26-2012, 7:30 PM Reply   
You are required in California to pass a competency based test to buy a handgun. The test consist of questions ranging from safety to storage to legal. Furthermore, before the firearm is released you must complete a safe handling demonstration, loading, unloading and locking up the firearm. You're also required to have a gunsafe, a DOJ approved lock box or a DOJ approved trigger lock prior to releasing the gun.
These are all verified by signed affidavit prior to taking possession of the firearm. DOJ "Shops" and plants decoys fairly regularly to be certain the requirements are met.
Old     (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       12-31-2012, 1:22 PM Reply

This was posted in another topic. I implore the liberals on this board to read this, even though they seem to be inactive here.
Old     (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       01-03-2013, 12:18 PM Reply   
Nick, that article describes my perspective very accurately. Effective legislation is good, as long as it doesn't infringe on Constitutional Rights. The issue with gun control, like the War on Drugs, is that the legislation is not effective at all and is largely based on total nonsense.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us