KB

For instance.....

Ken

No Joey wrong answer

you said before it is hoped...quote...." Feinstein's group will bring a good bill in banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines" but now you say all weapons should be allowed because it is 'Our right' 

They are conflicting stances.

As a man who has been a long term professional solider do you not feel that some weapons are just not for civilian use?

Ken

I don't see a law like that as boiling down to statistics, I see it as a step in the right direction.

What I would really like to see is the 'For' guys forgetting surveys and stats etc etc and stating why they believe that any weapon should be allowed in the family home.

I don't keep a gun in my house, none of my friends do either but if I was honestly concerned for my families safety not in my wildest dreams can I envisualise where I would need more than a simple hand gun.

Nanuq showed before why he needs a shot gun...damn right I would have one too if I lived in Alaska, in Australia most farmers have small bore rifles or shot guns for foxes and wild dogs etc but of course that is not a concern in the suburbs.

This is the part I don't understand.

Ken

The reason it bothers me Joey is that it demonstrates that there are gun lobbyist who will not only try anything to stop rational debate but also any attempt to legislate or as in this case re-legislate assault weapons.

The petition actually says that "Senator Dianne Feinstein is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment"  when in fact all she would be doing is to reinstate an expired assault weapons ban.

Ken

I would go on and read the comments after that article too.

Ken

Ok sorry I will expand, us republicans (yes I was one) lost the referendum

There was a lot of misleading info put out and the public was conned....sound familiar?

Ken

no

you see Joey this is the kind of thing that bothers me..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/white-house-petition-dianne-feinstein_n_2431980.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Why not change the discussion from banning guns and the right to own guns to specifically banning large clip magazines and assault weapons?

Two totally different topics there.

And Strongbow, your "If I want a friggin tank I'll have a friggin tank"...is the very attitude the rest of the world has a problem with, you are in the USA 'The land of the free' you make it sound more like a battlefield.

Ken

Thanks everyone

Ken

OMG you must be one of those post whore types.

Not something I would do

Ken

When people die in cars the people demand regulations to curb the deaths and driving is not only one of the most regulated past times we have and it continues to be regulated.

When they die in air disasters we demand strict safety laws, despite flying be much safer than driving.

But the list is endless, Tobacco and Alcohol (at least here in Australia) are targeted by a great deal of advertising and excise taxes, obesity is the new tobacco being tackled by our government.

Whatever you do travelling, swimming, hiking, hang gliding...if people can die the government or the people (usually both) have rules, advise and watchdog groups to try and save lives and it's the same all over the world.

Except guns in the US, the answer there is not any form of regulation, the answer is more guns. That's not freedom, that's Anarchy  

Glad I'm an Aussie.

I also know now that it is an overwhelming job to get American gun advocates to even consider, to even peek over the fence, of the opposing argument. Remember many on my side of the fence know the alternative, in the case of Aussies we have been there and know we made the right decision.

With that I'm bailing out, what drives me to try and get the message across is the utter gut wrenching sadness I feel when I think of those little kids gunned down in Sandy Hook. The fact that this atrocity didn't rip the heart out of the gun ownership stance, the fact that this thread is here a mere few weeks after the shooting tells me that Americans have become far to desensitised to truly grieve and to many their first reaction is defense.

Ken

I'll just leave you to read your own reply through a few times.

Maybe the penny will drop...maybe not.

Ken

And you don't feel it is necessary to bring that wording up to date?

Will it still be cool when people walk around with lasers? 

The guys that wrote that were politicians not Gods, they would have been the first to admit there would need to be further Amendments and such as situations change in the future.

Ken

Of course it is Joey, Police, Army Navy they are all regulated militias and the are all civilians

The point is because everyone in your bridge club has a gun that does not make them a regulated militia, nor even a slapdash militia, it makes them civilians with guns.

The whole point is moot anyway, the whole discussion is not about the 2nd Amendment it is about people not wanting to give up semi automatic weapons and they claim it's their constitutional right to keep them, the funny thing is that even the legal people do not truly understand what the Amendment means.....

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

The above is from the Legal Information Institute.

Ken

I would like to see the passage which clearly states the people are armed to keep the government in check.

It has been stated enough times now can someone please show this to me in print?

As far as I am aware it simply says....

Amendment II

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.

Ken

Edit to add....Mike I think your forefathers used the word Militia for a reason.

A regulated militia has nothing what-so-ever to do with armed civilians and everything to do with police, army, National Guard etc etc

Yes it also states the right of the people to bear arms but they are 2 different entities.

Ken 

I wouldn't know sorry but I should point out that my assessment of those shoes is based on price, the fact they sell a number of different brands and they come from Taiwan.

Ken

Ken when does it change as I would like qc pictures on my order Thanks Mike Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Mike we are still doing QC pic's up until the launch which will be in about 2 weeks.

Ken

Edit to add; when we do drop the QC pic's it will in no way impact on our quality or service, all goods will still be hand checked which is far more than photo's can give you.

Lots of problems with that scenario Mike.

For one people break into homes by stealth, they rarely kick your door down and come in with guns blazing so they would be standing over you when you wake, two I'm guessing you would have a hand gun in your bedside cabinet and not a semi automatic, and yes as I once belonged to a target shooting club, a skeet club and hunted I do know they are different from automatics and for the layman it is just a matter of rate of fire, three unless the person breaking in is some kind of nut job (which is rare) he is not there to kill your family he is there to take what he can and get out, if he is a nut job you probably would never wake up again anyway.

But again you want a hand gun for protection fine but a semi automatic! You might take out the perp but in a house with thin plaster walls you will probably take out half your family too.

Ken

Sorry that's simply rot, when mass murder occurs it is one of the most emotional situations know to man.

The NRA tells you not to play the emotion card because if everyone followed their heart they wouldn't exist.

What I have trouble with in this whole argument is that no one wants to ban guns totally, just automatic guns and yet we hear the 2nd amendment quoted time and again.

No one who signed the 2nd amendment would have, nor could have, had even the slightest concept of what an automatic rifle was. 

Ken

I dream about all those beautiful children who didn't go home that day, but yeah probably stupid putting flesh and blood before some nice cold steel.

Ken

Sorry Freddy the 2nd Amendment was referring to a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Every citizen in Israel has their backs to the sea and a common enemy who surrounds them on all sides, hardly a good example for gun safety.

Ken

At Z this is and always has been a self policing board when it comes to private sales, we have found this to be a far safer method of keeping scammers in check than the 'No comment on sales' used elsewhere.

That said there is no foolproof way to stop scammers from constantly making new accounts from different IPs and no we cannot be expected to catch them all.

The point I want to hear is if the OP has contacted his bank to ascertain if the payment is in fact a wire like claimed, despite the buyers past record shouldn't the OP first make sure he has been scammed?

Ken

Wow 6 1/2 years this must be some kind of record

Ken

However no I am 99% certain they are replica's