New Glocks for 2014

[Mreed911]

Doesn't have to. "Arms" does not have a complicated definition. "The right of the people to keep and bear SOME arms" is not what 2A says.

... neither is "The right of the people to keep and bear ALL arms."

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for arms ownership. I do think there is a line, though, that is reasonable. I don't support personal ownership of nuclear missiles, land mines or RPG's, but I guess you could call those munitions vs. arms. In fact, as a country, we actively pursue those seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons or to use chemical weapons but refuse to intervene when the same number of people are being killed with traditional arms, so we've already established a de facto line in terms of national intervention.

I don't, however, think the "why would you need that for hunting" approach is the right one, as that clearly wasn't the intent of the Second Amendment - it wasn't about keeping Bambi from repressing us, it was about keeping the government from repressing us.

My point is it's not an easy discussion, especially with the other side defaulting to inflammatory rhetoric and emotional response.

 

[Das Jared]

... neither is "The right of the people to keep and bear ALL arms."

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for arms ownership. I do think there is a line, though, that is reasonable. I don't support personal ownership of nuclear missiles, land mines or RPG's, but I guess you could call those munitions vs. arms. In fact, as a country, we actively pursue those seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons or to use chemical weapons but refuse to intervene when the same number of people are being killed with traditional arms, so we've already established a de facto line in terms of national intervention.

I don't, however, think the "why would you need that for hunting" approach is the right one, as that clearly wasn't the intent of the Second Amendment - it wasn't about keeping Bambi from repressing us, it was about keeping the government from repressing us.

My point is it's not an easy discussion, especially with the other side defaulting to inflammatory rhetoric and emotional response.

Your Austinite mentality is showing. There is no such thing as "reasonable limitations" period. Any limitation is in fact UNREASONABLE.

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom

 

[Mreed911]

Your Austinite mentality is showing. There is no such thing as "reasonable limitations" period. Any limitation is in fact UNREASONABLE.

Bullshit. Everyone should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons because the government does?

Everyone should be allowed to yell Fire! in a crowded theater, or verbally threaten to kill the President because the 1st doesn't say you can't?

Of course there are limits. WHERE there are limits falls back to the PURPOSE of the amendment and the nature of the right being protected. The second existed to give citizens self-protection from a government that could seek to disarm them to foster tyranny. To the degree that's even possible today given the mechanized military and technological advances is questionable; furthermore the weapon of choice in this age seems to be the 1st amendment which has become MORE powerful in this information age.

That's not to say firearms don't have a place - they do - but there are certainly reasonable limitations. I think the NFA crossed that line significantly, and I think organizations like the Texas State Guard play a role in furthering the abilities of "the militia" as is pertains to Texas citizens, but I also think that prohibiting possession of Hellfire missiles is appropriate at the personal level.

To keep this on topic, there's no reason Glock should have had to make the 42 stateside - they should be able to import it without restriction.

 

[dustycorgill]

I personally disagree with any infringement.....I mean it does say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED......or is my reading that bad?

 

[Das Jared]

Bullshit. Everyone should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons because the government does?

Everyone should be allowed to yell Fire! in a crowded theater, or verbally threaten to kill the President because the 1st doesn't say you can't?

Of course there are limits. WHERE there are limits falls back to the PURPOSE of the amendment and the nature of the right being protected. The second existed to give citizens self-protection from a government that could seek to disarm them to foster tyranny. To the degree that's even possible today given the mechanized military and technological advances is questionable; furthermore the weapon of choice in this age seems to be the 1st amendment which has become MORE powerful in this information age.

That's not to say firearms don't have a place - they do - but there are certainly reasonable limitations. I think the NFA crossed that line significantly, and I think organizations like the Texas State Guard play a role in furthering the abilities of "the militia" as is pertains to Texas citizens, but I also think that prohibiting possession of Hellfire missiles is appropriate at the personal level.

To keep this on topic, there's no reason Glock should have had to make the 42 stateside - they should be able to import it without restriction.

I am a free man, I will possess whatever the **** I want, and you will have absolutely no say in it. Don't like it? Pound sand, mother fucker.

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom

 

[sonuvaTXgun]

I am a free man, I will possess whatever the **** I want, and you will have absolutely no say in it. Don't like it? Pound sand, mother fucker.

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom

Tell 'em.

-TXG-

 

[Whisky]

.
how in the world does "new glocks for 2014" develop into "pound sand, mother $#@!er" ?????

such class in that post !



but back to the thread : any new glock WILL sell, period (just a the new STIs will sell, like hotcakes)

 

[Das Jared]

.
how in the world does "new glocks for 2014" develop into "pound sand, mother $#@!er" ?????

such class in that post !



but back to the thread : any new glock WILL sell, period (just a the new STIs will sell, like hotcakes)

Some people, such as myself, don't take too kindly to people who believe it is ok to impose on my natural, God-given rights, with draconian bullshit. And I'm the scum for that? Yea, ok.

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom

 

[Mreed911]

I am a free man, I will possess whatever the **** I want, and you will have absolutely no say in it. Don't like it? Pound sand, mother fucker.

And this is why we lose our rights.

Whether you like it or not, public opinion matters. It influences the politicians that write the laws, the elected judges who validate them and the appointed judges the elected politicians put in place. Positions like the above are taken by the public as extremist, which equates your position (wrongly) with McVeigh and the media-induced visions of bubba-in-camo that's fed to us daily.

While I support your right to hold and fight for your position, I respectfully ask you to shut the **** up and stop hurting the cause until we can move the needle to a place where you're (rightfully!) no longer viewed as extremist and instead the government is viewed as the extremist for wanting to curtail your right to own "whatever the **** [you] want" in the first place.

 

[Mreed911]

I personally disagree with any infringement.....I mean it does say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED......or is my reading that bad?

No, just your interpretation. There's no specificity. Arguably that means it's wide open, e.g. I can own anything. Interpretatively, that's not been upheld as the case and it's what's contested to this day. The argument is that being able to own/bear ANY arms meets the requirement... that it doesn't have to be ALL arms, primarily because "arms" has a much, much wider meaning now than then.

</done>

 

[Das Jared]

And this is why we lose our rights.

Whether you like it or not, public opinion matters. It influences the politicians that write the laws, the elected judges who validate them and the appointed judges the elected politicians put in place. Positions like the above are taken by the public as extremist, which equates your position (wrongly) with McVeigh and the media-induced visions of bubba-in-camo that's fed to us daily.

While I support your right to hold and fight for your position, I respectfully ask you to shut the **** up and stop hurting the cause until we can move the needle to a place where you're (rightfully!) no longer viewed as extremist and instead the government is viewed as the extremist for wanting to curtail your right to own "whatever the **** [you] want" in the first place.

</done>

No, we lose our rights because of people like YOU. Get a backbone. Take your "reasonable" bullshit elsewhere. If you haven't noticed, they don't give us (gun owners) anything back. Look what happened in Colorado. They had the same mentality I do. Can you say, recall? We will not get our rights back until we as a whole aggressively go after them. So, nut up or shut up, and get out of the way.

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom

 

[Mreed911]

No, we lose our rights because of people like YOU. Get a backbone. Take your "reasonable" bullshit elsewhere. If you haven't noticed, they don't give us (gun owners) anything back. Look what happened in Colorado. They had the same mentality I do. Can you say, recall? We will not get our rights back until we as a whole aggressively go after them. So, nut up or shut up, and get out of the way.

Yeah, see, there's no "win" here. I'm tired of the friendly fire from people who don't care to understand how the system ACTUALLY works, instead hoping that some day they'll get to make their fantasies real and starting shooting at gub'mint people who come to take their guns because they're who the gub'mint got everyone scared of in the first place.

I'd be happy to work with you but that has to go both ways - you have to be wiling to abandon the "all or nothing" approach (not the mentality, mind you) to win a battle. The sad part is that you can't see that actually puts YOU in control of what the NEXT battle is because you're the trailblazer... you're upset because you can't get everything done at once.

It's simply not how it works. There's no win to be had like this...

 

[txinvestigator]

I am a free man, I will possess whatever the $#@! I want, and you will have absolutely no say in it. Don't like it? Pound sand, mother $#@!er.

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom

And they say I have trouble winning friends and influencing people.....

Being free does not equate to doing whatever you want.

 

[breakingcontact]

Hey lets all hold hands here and just get more gun people out to vote! K? Thanks! Bye!

 

[RickLovesBacon]

Lol you glock people are funny.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Das Jared]

Lol. Done feeding the trolls here.

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom

 

[AKM]

Closet liberals this sites going to shit. Bring back the old TGT and kick all the new morons off.......I love how theres a ton of new folks and now theres a ton of bullshit. Bunch of first time gun owners are all of the sudden gun experts on everything from Constitutional law to NFA trusts/paper work. I cant believe Im saying this but Im with Jared get with the program or kick rocks motherfucker.


This site ran fine before you got here and will still run fine when your ass is gone. if you want to argue go to AR15.com or the glock forums.


And since you're arguing about rights, don't forget the freedom of speech protects you from the government NOT from me.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I like Glocks!

 

[AKM]

I like Glocks!

Zombie Kid Likes Turtles - YouTube

 

[London]

... neither is "The right of the people to keep and bear ALL arms."

And even if it said that you'd then argue, "Well, its doesn't say 'All arms including AR-15s, AK-47s, .50 BMGs...'" This isn't rocket science, brain surgery, or theoretical physics. You don't even need a Rosetta Stone. The Constitution is written in plain English. If there was supposed to be an exception the forefathers would have mentioned it. Stop twisting the English language to fit your liberal interpretation of what guns people should be allowed to own.

I don't support personal ownership of nuclear missiles, land mines or RPG's, but I guess you could call those munitions vs. arms.

Oh, jeez, the old Michael Moore nuclear arms crap argument. Here's a wake-up call for you: If someone who had the money and ability to own them wanted them, he'd get them. It has happened before.

As far as land mines and RPGs, not only ditto to the above, but things like this were perfectly legal until the NFA 1934. Tell me how many crimes were committed with them.

In fact, as a country, we actively pursue those seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons or to use chemical weapons but refuse to intervene when the same number of people are being killed with traditional arms, so we've already established a de facto line in terms of national intervention.

Poor analogy. Leaders of other governments do not have rights under the Constitution.

I don't, however, think the "why would you need that for hunting" approach is the right one, as that clearly wasn't the intent of the Second Amendment - it wasn't about keeping Bambi from repressing us, it was about keeping the government from repressing us.

And yet you're happy to keep us all armed with only the most neutered versions of Uncle Sams weakest weapons. You either seriously need to do more research on the facts behind your opinions, or you are truly as hopeless as Dick Metcalf.