. .

 

I agree. It was changed through a three fourths majority. Gun control advocates are attempting to bypass that process. Therefore it isn't legal.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to trot out the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to demonstrate how the process works. The Southern states were so dead set against it that Congress established military governance via the Reconstruction Acts and made ratification a prerequisite to getting civil government back. Here in Kentucky we rejected the amendment and finally came around to the idea of due process and equal protection under the law in 1976.

I wouldn't be so quick to trot out the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to demonstrate how the process works. The Southern states were so dead set against it that Congress established military governance via the Reconstruction Acts and made ratification a prerequisite to getting civil government back. Here in Kentucky we rejected the amendment and finally came around to the idea of due process and equal protection under the law in 1976.

 

Better late than never I guess.

To do what, exactly?

 

Shoot skeet?

 

The point is that these so called 'military' guns are no more lethal and are in fact less 'lethal' that many other 'hunting-specific' guns. They are 'general purpose'. They fire a smaller projectile that most hunting guns so they have less per round killing power. They are 'high velocity' but so are most hunting rifles. They have detachable and flexible magazines - as do a good number of hunting rifles. If you want a single, general purpose rifle - for many purposes - these make sense.

 

'Military', 'assault' - they are scare words that are designed to frighten. I rifle is a rifle.

I wouldn't be so quick to trot out the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to demonstrate how the process works. The Southern states were so dead set against it that Congress established military governance via the Reconstruction Acts and made ratification a prerequisite to getting civil government back. Here in Kentucky we rejected the amendment and finally came around to the idea of due process and equal protection under the law in 1976.

 

I hate to point this out but was Kentucky not the last state where slavery was officially legal and only with the 14th it was outlawed legally?

 

My understanding is that no Northern state has legal slavery. The 3 'border' states that did were Missouri, Kentucky and Kansas. Slavery was abolished in the 'Rebelling states' with Emancipation Proclamation but since Kentucky was not a 'rebelling state' this did not apply to Kentucky. By the end of the war Kansas and Missouri got with the program and outlawed slavery at a state level. But not Kentucky. And it took the 14th to finally and formally outlaw slavery in Kentucky.

 

Is this correct? If so, not a good distinction. Just shows our legislator is slow to address issues of the day.

Shoot skeet?

 

The point is that these so called 'military' guns are no more lethal and are in fact less 'lethal' that many other 'hunting-specific' guns. They are 'general purpose'. They fire a smaller projectile that most hunting guns so they have less per round killing power. They are 'high velocity' but so are most hunting rifles. They have detachable and flexible magazines - as do a good number of hunting rifles. If you want a single, general purpose rifle - for many purposes - these make sense.

 

'Military', 'assault' - they are scare words that are designed to frighten. I rifle is a rifle.

 

Not having served in the military, I really didn't know that. Even so, that gets the military better able to...

I hate to point this out but was Kentucky not the last state where slavery was officially legal and only with the 14th it was outlawed legally?

 

My understanding is that no Northern state has legal slavery. The 3 'border' states that did were Missouri, Kentucky and Kansas. Slavery was abolished in the 'Rebelling states' with Emancipation Proclamation but since Kentucky was not a 'rebelling state' this did not apply to Kentucky. By the end of the war Kansas and Missouri got with the program and outlawed slavery at a state level. But not Kentucky. And it took the 14th to finally and formally outlaw slavery in Kentucky.

 

Is this correct? If so, not a good distinction. Just shows our legislator is slow to address issues of the day.

 

The 13th is the one that outlawed slavery but yeah I believe that's true. Although I don't know that Kentucky was the only one that didn't formally outlaw it until it was done for us by the Thirteenth.

Why are semi-automatics "another deal all together?"

 

Because as usual most people don't even no what one is and what they are even talking about. I have the same question marvel.

If he wants to show off his guns that's on him. I didn't ask to see them. I don't care that he has them. He said let me show you my guns. Forgive me for questioning why anyone would need that big of a gun. I question EVERYTHING in life and always will. Just the way it is.

 

Criminals will never be limited. If the 2nd Amendment stated it was in place to protect you from criminals then I'd understand. That's not in the literature.

 

The problem isn't the guns it's the people with the guns. I don't trust people I don't know with guns. Criminals or law abiding. I really don't care if I don't sound supportive of the 2nd Amendment. If nothing changes then I'm cool with that. If restrictions are put in place I am cool with that too. If that is me not supporting the 2nd Amendment then so be it.

 

Wasn't there an Amendment saying blacks were 3/5 of a person? Why is that one okay to change when the times dictate it but it's not okay to change others when the times may dictate it? I'm still having a hard time believing interpretation of the law in 1776 means the same in 2013.

I know people that collect all kinds of things and show them off. That's not unusual at all.

 

You think people in the times when the 2nd Amendment was framed didn't own guns for protection? I think the wording of it to stop a tyrannical government is enough, though.

 

Hey, I don't trust anyone I don't know. I trust the government even less, though. It's hard for me to think you're supportive of the 2nd when I see you saying things like "I'm willing to conform to the parameters of whatever law they push forward" or "I would conform to the law. It honestly wouldn't bother me if every house and vehicle was searched and all guns confiscated. PP92 would survive." Those comments certainly don't come off as pro 2nd Amendment, so it should be easy to see why some of us make that statement.

 

So, by all means, lets just do away with the whole damn thing. Hell, this is 2013, we don't need some stupid, out of date piece of paper telling us what rights we have. Screw it, let's rewrite history while we're at it.

When the constitution was written I sincerely doubt they had the weaponry of 2013 in mind when they wrote it.

 

It is just as likely as they wouldn't have had in mind the weaponry that can be used against law abiding citizens.

 

Danville's a great town. In a different way, so is Bedford, KY (my neck of the woods). However, there are places that people live that aren't as great and the need to be ready to defend yourself is a bit more immediate.

 

Also, if you ever have three perps attack you or your family and you go three for three, I'll but you a steak dinner and a cold one...or two.

Edited January 24, 201313 yr by True blue (and gold)

Realistically though, I feel like most people with guns will keep their guns whether it is against the law or not. My brother in law paid a pretty penny for his AK. It ain't going nowhere.

 

I think people are giving criminals way too much credit myself. If I needed a gun I guarantee I could get one illegally or legally without issue. I suspect many people who are law abiding citizens who love guns way more than I do can do the same.

Law abiding citizens should not be forced to break the law to posses a firearm.

You're either with 'em or against 'em. There's no compromise. :lol:

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

And... your compromise is what?

True, they were attacking crack. However, I don't believe that these laws have been upheld through some sort of racist agenda. They arrest criminals who engage in drug crimes.

 

Take a look at United States v. Armstrong. You want to know why a black defendant cannot pinpoint that the laws of crack possession have racial motives? Because the federal government will not allow them to; the defendant gets zero discovery. So what does a criminal defendant have to base his decision off? Essentially nothing.

PP I respect you and your position, but I could not disagree more with you. You are normally a very thoughtful and insightful voice of reason on BGP, but on this one cause you seem to be following the Democrat talking points. I have too much respect for you, to post any further or comment any more on this thread, we can agree to disagree.

It all boils down to the same questions. How will the proposed assault weapons ban stop someone from shooting up the next gun free zone? How will teachers like TB&G and the kids in her class be protected by the ban from some nut shooting up the school they're at? How will the ban stop gun murders in cities like Chicago and New York? How will the ban affect criminals? Why is it these bans only pin point law abiding citizens?

The 13th is the one that outlawed slavery but yeah I believe that's true. Although I don't know that Kentucky was the only one that didn't formally outlaw it until it was done for us by the Thirteenth.

 

Thats right....13 was specific to slavery and then when Southern States would not grant the freed slaves citizenship the ill-conceived or at least ill-used for anchor babies 14th came about. Thanks.