Do you think....?

Yes, the following scenario.

You threaten to kill me, and then hearing I am going to get a restraining order against you you go lie and get one first. By law I cannot even have a gun in my home if I am under a restraining order for threatening.
 
So you believe that a small minority of armed citizens can overthrow the United States government?

Overthrow I'm not sure it depends on the ideological atmosphere at the time. I don't think Islamic fundamentalists could do it. If Bush continues some of the things he is doing or some future President than the people may rally around them.

BTW I never would want this to be the first option I'd rather it be a last one but I think it needs to be an option. These are dark times and optimism of positive change the other way does not fill me I'm afraid.
 
i think the purpose of the right to bear arms was so the country could defend itself against invaders. they proved that a well armed citizenry could indeed fight effectively agains a 'foreign' army, and wantedt o make sure they could continue to do so...they may well have expected the rematch with the british.
 
"What he's saying is that what you brought up, could be misused. Say by a divorcing couple. You now how some of them get so nasty, that they each run to file child abuse charges against the other? And both are lying?

However, I think you have an interesting idea. There will always be people who attempt to misuse a law."

True. There will always be those that do try to circumvent/misuse the law. But I think this will help in the vast majority of situations. As a gun owner, I cannot see how anyone could object to this if an exemption were able to be had for those who felt themselves in danger. Just food for thought.

Also, US's argument was weak in that I did not suggest that they had to file a complaint against someone else (as this may scare women away from getting the protection as they fear an abusive husband/boyfriend/stalker and would not want a police record of a complaint against said coward). I also did not suggest that only one of a couple in a dispute be allowed the exemption... if two parties were at each other and both felt their lives would be in danger, then both would be able to get the exemption.
 
Superfreak said:
"What he's saying is that what you brought up, could be misused. Say by a divorcing couple. You now how some of them get so nasty, that they each run to file child abuse charges against the other? And both are lying?

However, I think you have an interesting idea. There will always be people who attempt to misuse a law."

True. There will always be those that do try to circumvent/misuse the law. But I think this will help in the vast majority of situations. As a gun owner, I cannot see how anyone could object to this if an exemption were able to be had for those who felt themselves in danger. Just food for thought.

Also, US's argument was weak in that I did not suggest that they had to file a complaint against someone else (as this may scare women away from getting the protection as they fear an abusive husband/boyfriend/stalker and would not want a police record of a complaint against said coward). I also did not suggest that only one of a couple in a dispute be allowed the exemption... if two parties were at each other and both felt their lives would be in danger, then both would be able to get the exemption.
Click to expand...

I think it's workable.
 
"By law I cannot even have a gun in my home if I am under a restraining order for threatening."

Seriously? I have not heard that before... thus unaware. I retract the fact that I said your argument was weak if that is indeed the case.
 
Superfreak said:
"By law I cannot even have a gun in my home if I am under a restraining order for threatening."

Seriously? I have not heard that before... thus unaware. I retract the fact that I said your argument was weak if that is indeed the case.
Click to expand...

It is the law in KY. Never had one on me, but I know of several who have. Mostly in divorce cases.

heck I am squeaky clean, never even a speeding ticket.
 
HipLew said:
i think the purpose of the right to bear arms was so the country could defend itself against invaders. they proved that a well armed citizenry could indeed fight effectively agains a 'foreign' army, and wantedt o make sure they could continue to do so...they may well have expected the rematch with the british.
Click to expand...


i think the purpose of the right to bear arms was so the country could defend itself against invaders. they proved that a well armed citizenry could indeed fight effectively agains a 'foreign' army

This is one time we agree hip. And there's no need to even speculate about it. The amendment very clearly outlines the major reason, the framers drafted the amendment: to provide that militias comprised of citizen soldiers could defend the nation against attack.
 
Yep Bubba will grab a six pack his gun and hunting camos and defend our country....Against missles and bombers....

Me thinks the concept is a bit outdated....
 
uscitizen said:
Yep Bubba will grab a six pack his gun and hunting camos and defend our country....Against missles and bombers....

Me thinks the concept is a bit outdated....
Click to expand...

It still allows some adult men to play army/miliita games in rural Idaho, while letting them think they're doing it for a higher purpose.

It's really nothing more than glorified paintball. All grown men still have a little bit of the young boy in them. Playing army is cool - who doesn't like paintball? ;)
 
I have a paintball gun. Fun to shoot stray dogs and run em off with.
But have no interest in playing the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top