NationStates Jolt Archive

I (and most crime statistics) disagree with you on that one.

And I've read, (and seen) folks pull a weapon that was concealed to *stop* a crime. No shots were fired, as the perp ran...

Untrue. That's like saying you don't need a newspaper to print the news. A gun is a tool, like any other.Care to quote some of those statistics? Even if you can, it's likely that the methodologies are suspect to say the least, since we'll be dealing with very small sample sizes. Concealed carry, as you have noted, is only legal in some states and generally requires at least a cursory background check, so that limits your target group already. Throw in that it's been quite a number of years since weapons were worn openly with any sort of regularity and you throw another statistical monkey wrench in the works.

As to your second point, all I'm saying is that it's far more likely that a perp who sees a person packing is far less likely to start something--he'll go after another victim who looks unarmed because they're easier pickings. If you're looking for true deterrent effect--not the tough guy ability to pull a gun and be a hero--then wear it in the open and the criminals are more likely to leave you and those who are with you alone.

Not only because it's so blasted unlikely, but because if they could do that already, don't you think they would have? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not tracked. Want proof? Try to buy large quantites of fertilizer in cash today.They can't do it now, because civilians can't buy missiles and launchers. The government can track it all they want. So what? They are not committing any crime with the material before they target the missiles and launch them, by which time they can't be stopped. That's the beauty of it.
BTW, I do like how you had to reach to such exteme examples to justify why guns should be banned. :DYou offered an extreme opinion on what should be legal to acquire and own, I gave an extreme example of how those things could be used. The use of SAMs wouldn't be the least bit extreme, either, since that already happens all over the middle east (only they have a hell of a time trying to get their hands on those SAMs). And yeah, that would be funny if, you know, I were trying to justify why guns should be banned.

And, BTW, why do you figure I want to ban guns? Certainly I haven't said I do.
Agreed. So why are you bringing them up? It IS a technology arguement. Either you ban everything from an Arquebus to an Ak-74 (and beyond), or you ban nothing. QED.How was that proven, exactly, and why has it got to do with just technology? In Finland, alcoholic drinks over 60% proof were banned for a long time after the prohibition (until quite rather recently). The ban was quite effective and had no real ill effects (except on the sales of some liquors in Scandinavia). This and similar examples, like that of the Japanese car HP limits, from all over the world shows that laws using such grading can and do work.

There's a huge difference in how a bolt action rifle functions and how an assault rifle functions. Legislation can be made that distuingishes between the two. You might think that's not fair, based on your reading of the constitution, your fear of being attacked and needing the weapons to defend yourself, your will to have any item you want that does not harm others just through existing, or based on some other reason. That doesn't mean the law doesn't work, or that there aren't any good reasons to implement such a law.

Is banning tracked vehicles from driving on roads a "technological argument"?
What you're missing is that we are talking about licensed, legally owning citizens. These licenses aren't coming out of happy meals, you know.And I don't expect them to come easily. A 3-month Safe Surface-to-Air Missile Handling 101 course is not going to stop someone who wants to blow up a few passenger aircraft. Careful screening might, but I assume that would go against several readings of the 2nd amendment, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- against your principles.
A hypothetical back at you: I can make bombs out of fertilizer, load them into a rental truck and try to blow up a building in Oklahoma. Or the WTC. I know, let's ban fertilizer and trucks! :rolleyes:Completely different. It's illegal to make those bombs. You buy the fertilizer and the gasoline (or whatever else you use to build the bomb), the feds pay attention, notice you're building a bomb and arrest you. In the case of the missiles, however, the people getting ready to launch them are not committing any crime, assuming acquiring and owning the missiles is legal. In other words, I don't want to ban fertilizer and trucks -- it's enough for me that making an ANFO bomb and driving it around in a truck is banned.
It has nothing to do with what the item IS, it is with enforcing how it is USED.I believe the argument is that some items are so dangerous when used, and there is no practical way to stop them from being used, that banning them and thus "limiting personal freedoms" is preferable to taking the risk of them being used in an exceptionally illegal manner.

I wouldn't know about the rest. I live in a country where over 90% of the population is "liberal" by some definitions thrown around here.

an invasion is when a person enters an area with out permission from the owner or government(and are not a citizen of said government/or its a military base etc). for example Home Inavison. if you force your war into a strangers house without their consent(even if you arent occyping or holding the house for yourself) and then cause a fight and leave it is still home invaison. you do not need to hold ground to invade a house or a country. All you need to do is force your way onto their property(without permission) with hostile intent(hostile intent isnt needed to still be classified as an invasion).

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

That right is no longer nescessary. In the 18th and 19th century, sure it was. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, people simply do not need guns.

Would YOU want a crazed, drunken redneck to have a machine gun? :headbang:

Okay, I get the idea that you still want to allow revolvers. How about safeties on said revolvers? :DI did not say a word about wanting to allow them. I was merely commenting on criticism about what Snub Nose 38 said his optimal legislation would be like.
You do realize that the only difference between the Mateba (effectively) and any other double-action revolver is that the Mateba cocks the hammer back for all subsequent shots. It still doesn't eject the case. That's not really much of a difference.Yes, I know how the Mateba works compared to single-action or double-action revolvers. I did not need to use the Rectal Extraction Method to produce those links. It's a big enough difference to make the Mateba a semi-automatic weapon while double-action revolvers are not. If you're going to draw any line in this issue, it's going to come down to things as small as that or smaller.

If a state tried to secede on the other hand, the govt. could use all it's force. Our armed forces would mean jack shit if the general population of Iraq really wanted us out. There are about 5000-6000 people fighting us, less after the Fallujah assault. If the general populace were to get as many guns as they could and try to force us out, they would certainly do so.

We kill 5000-6000 insurgents a week pally boy

That right is no longer nescessary. In the 18th and 19th century, sure it was. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, people simply do not need guns.

Would YOU want a crazed, drunken redneck to have a machine gun? :headbang:
how do you know guns arent nescessary? if we ban guns the ppl who would kill wouldnt care if its illegal they would still buy them, only difference now is that ppl who need them to defend themselves wouldnt have them because guns would be banned. We need guns if only to deter criminals and to protect oursleves from them should we be attacked by a criminal with a gun. What im i supposed to do if guns are banned and some wacko with an illegal gun wants to kill me let him shoot me?

As to your second point, all I'm saying is that it's far more likely that a perp who sees a person packing is far less likely to start something--he'll go after another victim who looks unarmed because they're easier pickings. If you're looking for true deterrent effect--not the tough guy ability to pull a gun and be a hero--then wear it in the open and the criminals are more likely to leave you and those who are with you alone.

Actually, if someone were going to do something anyway, they'd target the person wearing the gun first. Anyone with any modicum of tactics knowledge would. But if the potential for everyone to be armed is there (allowing concealed carry so you didn't know who was armed and who wasn't), criminals are more deterred by that circumstance.

of course it was...pearl harbor was an air invasion to destroy a us fleet(just because no ground forces dosent mean its not an invasion). In order to do an air invasion they carriers entered US waters, which was all done with the means to make war with the US. Secondly the US was invaded by a small terrorist cell which meant to make war with the US as well. They also carriered out their plot and attacked us from with in our nation on our soil. Therefore both were invasions.

Yah no, Invasion must have an intent to occupy and niether pearl harbour or 9/11 had that intent

I did not say a word about wanting to allow them. I was merely commenting on criticism about what Snub Nose 38 said his optimal legislation would be like.
Yes, I know how the Mateba works compared to single-action or double-action revolvers. I did not need to use the Rectal Extraction Method to produce those links. It's a big enough difference to make the Mateba a semi-automatic weapon while double-action revolvers are not. If you're going to draw any line in this issue, it's going to come down to things as small as that or smaller.

Okay, okay....too small for me to nitpick at this time. :)

Yah no, Invasion must have an intent to occupy and niether pearl harbour or 9/11 had that intent nope your wrong you can invade with no intent to occupy or hold land. For example the US invaded Laos and Cambodia during vietnam war to engage VC but we did not occupy land.

That right is no longer nescessary. In the 18th and 19th century, sure it was. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, people simply do not need guns.

Would YOU want a crazed, drunken redneck to have a machine gun? :headbang:

I love this one. This right here embodies the elitist liberal attitude of moral and intellectual superiority. If you're a gun rights supporter and conservative, you're a drunken redneck. Apparently all inebriated rednecks are crazed, too.

Let me tell you something. Most of the people you would classify as a "redneck" ALREADY own guns and multiple ones, too. Machine guns? Probably not but what difference does that make? A hunting rifle is a lot more accurate than a machinegun anyway.

You might consider me redneck. My mom is from West Virginia, I'm white, I was an auto mechanic for a while and I love being in the mountains. I think Jeff Foxworthy is hilarious. I wear military fatigues around the house because I find them to be very comfortable. I also own 2 assault rifles and a semiautomatic handgun. (All perfectly legal I assure you.)

My 2 older children know all about gun safety, they've fired my pistol and as soon as the opportunity presents itself they'll get to try my AK-47 and my AR-15. They know to always treat a gun as if it were loaded, and that includes my paintball marker and a BB gun. They know to never ever mess with my collection and they know how to handle them safely when we go to the range. The always keep the safety on when not shooting, finger off the trigger, keep it pointed in a safe direction, etc.

Does that scare you? It shouldn't. We are all responsible, intelligent and honest. I'm not going to spend any time justifying my purchase of these firearms, because I don't owe anybody an explanation. The Consitition says I have the right, and so I exercised it. My children are perfectly safe, I'm perfectly safe, and I feel good knowing that if somebody were to attack my home while I'm there I would have the ability to protect my family. I also feel good knowing if it happens when I'm not home, my wife is proficient with my pistol and could also use it if necessary.

I feel safer with any of my mountain dwelling relatives owning firearms than I would with most of the people who claim all of this superiority.

how do you know guns arent nescessary? if we ban guns the ppl who would kill wouldnt care if its illegal they would still buy them, only difference now is that ppl who need them to defend themselves wouldnt have them because guns would be banned. We need guns if only to deter criminals and to protect oursleves from them should we be attacked by a criminal with a gun. What im i supposed to do if guns are banned and some wacko with an illegal gun wants to kill me let him shoot me?

I would also add that it's up to the individual, not the Government or any other person, to decide whether or not he or she needs a gun.

I so sick of people stating the second ammendment as a reason we can own guns and assuming the conversation is over. Just cause it's an ammendment does not mean that it is a solid truth. How about we change the damn ammendment and start looking guns from an ethical perpesctive instead of using political loopholes.
If you knew anything at all about classic liberal ideaology you would know that's exactly they approach the founding fathers were using when they wrote the damn thing.

Two friendly countries?! LMFAO

Mexico would help the invaders and take Cali and Mexico.

Canada and the EU would backstab the US the first chance they get. I'm willing to bet my life on these two statements.

Is there a country that you do consider friendly? Apart from yourselves that is. You don't have much faith in other countries.

yes and no, first of all who says mexico and or canada arent just itching to take us out? we dont know. Germany tried to get mexico to attack us in world war one. secondly england was planning an invasion of the US just before world war two which was why they were so well prepared to fight germany.

A few things, if you're so sure that all these countries are itching to take you out, perhaps your country may be doing something wrong....


Secondly, I highly doubt Britain was planning to invade the US, and I know that they were prepared for world war II because they were aware that Germany had been breaking the Treaty of Versailles, and Britain began building up military forces.

Also, firearms are not legal in the U.K, but I have yet to see someone with an 'illegal' gun come up and shoot me, or anyone I know. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/748787.stm Interesting article, also read this part:
"America - where 12 children are killed every day in gun-related incidents - " If that happened in the U.K, it would be front page news I expect

My father was a redneck and so is the rest of his family. They're all violent and abusive and I wouldn't trust any of them with so much as a pea shooter. But they all own multiple guns and slingshots and who knows what else.

Unfortunately you're probably right; banning guns will only make them hold onto theirs tighter.

I do wish there was some way to get rid of those weapons though...

All conjecture, I'm afraid.
Actually I'd like to see them try to take another plane hostage. It's almost a certainty that quite a few passengers would fight back and rip them to shreds.

We really don't want to invade you, we don't have a second ammendment, and we get along quite nicely with gun control.

This idea that you need arms to fend off an invasion makes you sound as paranoid as North Korea.

:headbang: People need to stop with the whole "Liberal" and "Consevative" labels for it drowns out the ISSUE! I may be classified as a liberal, and I am part of the DFL party in the great state of Minnesota, but that doesn't mean that I want to ban guns. As a matter of fact, "liberals" don't want to ban guns, "liberals" want to just regulate guns more, for guns have been getting into the wrong hands. Example is the bizzare shooting in Wisconsin last weekend. An ex-miltary man shot eight hunters, killing six. Something needs to happen, I agree that we should be allowed to own and have guns, but there are people out there that should not. Hence more strict background checks. This message comes from a politican who is so called "Liberal".
So next time, drop the labels, and just debate the ISSUE!!!
:mad:

And exactly how fast do you think rifleboy would would wet himself when faced with a government force armed with military grade weapons?

The guyboys are such macho children.

:headbang: People need to stop with the whole "Liberal" and "Consevative" labels for it drowns out the ISSUE! I may be classified as a liberal, and I am part of the DFL party in the great state of Minnesota, but that doesn't mean that I want to ban guns. As a matter of fact, "liberals" don't want to ban guns, "liberals" want to just regulate guns more, for guns have been getting into the wrong hands. Example is the bizzare shooting in Wisconsin last weekend. An ex-miltary man shot eight hunters, killing six. Something needs to happen, I agree that we should be allowed to own and have guns, but there are people out there that should not. Hence more strict background checks. This message comes from a politican who is so called "Liberal".
So next time, drop the labels, and just debate the ISSUE!!!
:mad:

That incident involved a hunter with a 20- round clip. I think a 20-round clip is unecessary for hunting deer and also has nothing to do with sportsmanship.
It's kind of like taking dynamite to the pond for fishing. That's the kind of thing I feel should be regulated. Ok you can have that kind of setup for safe target practice, but not in the field.

Fine and dandy, but a key fact of measuring statistics is that correlation does not imply causation. Other factors may be in effect here. Just food for thought.
This actually hurts your case since you have not shown that banning firearms will reduce the murder rate, or non-homicide crime rate. It certainly won't reduce the suicide rate.

That right is no longer nescessary. In the 18th and 19th century, sure it was. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, people simply do not need guns.

Would YOU want a crazed, drunken redneck to have a machine gun? :headbang:
Yes, because I trust my trigger finger to be faster and steadier than his.

And exactly how fast do you think rifleboy would would wet himself when faced with a government force armed with military grade weapons?

The guyboys are such macho children.
Lets assume that only 1/6 of the people who own guns choose to stand and fight. 1/6 of 80 mil is 13,333,333 people with weapons fighting the US military. Spread across mainland US that is 277,778, per state. Yeah, I sure as hell think they could. Especially since at that point the army would have to be composed of indoctrinated conscripts, all fighting in states not their own.

My father was a redneck and so is the rest of his family. They're all violent and abusive and I wouldn't trust any of them with so much as a pea shooter. But they all own multiple guns and slingshots and who knows what else.
Have they killed an innocent with their weapons? If not your argument is nonexistant.

Vila's was a foreign ARMY, fighting in a Civil War in Mexico. Or was General Lee leading a military force in the US Civil War?

I disagree. Or were the Scottish that sacked York (ala Braveheart) not invaders? Or just about any battle in the US Civil or Boer Wars? There are many, many examples in history of non-occupational invasions.

Dude, they looted and pillaged an American town that had not provoked them. The citizens clearly had the right to protect themselves.

My point is that it wasn't a sovereign army - it was a military force... how can I explain this... okay - 6 guys cross the border from Canada and start shooting people - is America being 'invaded'? Is this an Army?

What about if the Canadian government SENT those 6 men... are they THEN an army?

You do know that Braveheart was a film, right? Or are you actually aware of some of the history behind it?

You would realise that the Scots were more of a resistance than an invasion - rebelling against a corrupt and unfair rule from another power.

They didn't really 'loot and pillage a town that hadn't provoked them', did they? They fought back against an alien regime involving itself in domestic politics, and they targetted a military target - and also inflicted some civilian damage.

How about Iraq? They are hunting terrorists, but then a 3 year old girl gets shot - were they targetting toddlers? Should the 3 year old have been armed for her own protection?


Oh, and there never was an American "Civil War" - go check your history, then check the definition of a civil war.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :mad:
I'm extreme right-wing, but I believe only police and the military should have the right to bear arms. People rarely kill people, guns more often.

Yes, because I trust my trigger finger to be faster and steadier than his.

And, of course, the crazed drunken redneck is going to come looking for you, right? So you can use your superhuman reflexes to smack that bad-puppy down?

Or maybe he will wander into a school yard and start wasting 6 year-olds.

That'll teach them, right? They should have been quicker on the draw, right?

The question I would like to throw out to stimulate discussion (I'm not expressing a viewpoint) is whether or not the second amendment is really valid anymore.

It states that the maintenance of a well-ordered militia is necessary to the well-being of the union (paraphrase) so citizens have the right to arms. But is a militia really necessary anymore when we have the most powerful military in the world? The War of 1812 has been brought up, but that was over 100 years ago when we didn't have the standing military and reserve power that we have today.

Just a ramble.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :mad:
I'm extreme right-wing, but I believe only police and the military should have the right to bear arms. People rarely kill people, guns more often.
By that logic cars should be banned as well. The kill just under about double the number of people killed in this country each year by firearms. And actually other methods are used to kill people far more often than firearms.

My father was a redneck and so is the rest of his family. They're all violent and abusive and I wouldn't trust any of them with so much as a pea shooter. But they all own multiple guns and slingshots and who knows what else.

Unfortunately you're probably right; banning guns will only make them hold onto theirs tighter.

I do wish there was some way to get rid of those weapons though...

Would you be so kind as to answer this question then:

Have they gone out and used those firearms in any crime? I'm just curious of the answer.

By that logic cars should be banned as well. The kill just under about double the number of people killed in this country each year by firearms.

I don't know where you took logic class at (NRA gun-camp?), but no that does not follow logically. Polly want a cracker? Cars are not made or used with the intention of deadly force. By YOUR logic?, being born should be banned as well since being born is ultimately the cause of dying.

That incident involved a hunter with a 20- round clip. I think a 20-round clip is unecessary for hunting deer and also has nothing to do with sportsmanship.
It's kind of like taking dynamite to the pond for fishing. That's the kind of thing I feel should be regulated. Ok you can have that kind of setup for safe target practice, but not in the field.

How about concentrating on the actual user of the weapon? The guy had an interesting criminal record.

I wish we had the death penalty in this state....you kill eight people whose land you invaded? Bullet to the head for you, my idiot friend.

The question I would like to throw out to stimulate discussion (I'm not expressing a viewpoint) is whether or not the second amendment is really valid anymore.

It states that the maintenance of a well-ordered militia is necessary to the well-being of the union (paraphrase) so citizens have the right to arms. But is a militia really necessary anymore when we have the most powerful military in the world? The War of 1812 has been brought up, but that was over 100 years ago when we didn't have the standing military and reserve power that we have today.

Just a ramble.

Yup, it's still necessary. Everyone keeps forgetting that the original intent of the 2nd amendment wasn't to stop foreign invasion. It was to stop oppression by our own government. That will always be a need--political corruption has been and will always be around.

Link it up please. I don't happen to know this guy's history. I was only pointing out the issue of sportsmanship. That kind of firepower is uncooth for hunting where I come from.
If this guy does have some history, then this is a case for regulation. Should he be issued a license to hunt or own a weapon? The NRA says yes.

And, of course, the crazed drunken redneck is going to come looking for you, right? So you can use your superhuman reflexes to smack that bad-puppy down?

Or maybe he will wander into a school yard and start wasting 6 year-olds.

That'll teach them, right? They should have been quicker on the draw, right?

The whole, "School yard massacre" situation is VERY old. A guy with an 18-wheeler could just as easily drive not only through the school yard, but through the school itself. Yet we don't psychologically examine every driver, do we?

School yard shootings are VERY few and far between. Banning guns doesn't do a whit of good for those.

It's all emotional rhetoric.

Ok, so reading this thread, the reasons why people (not necessarily liberals) want gun control is:

We don't "need" them.
the vague definitions of "assault weapons".
any deregulation means handing out guns to criminals
terrorists will get guns
the 2nd amendment is outdated
criminals can get guns
we should only have what the gov't allows
cars are regulated so so should guns
we can't fight the military so why bother
slippery slope to nukes

and how many of these same people screamed and ranted against the patriot act removing civil rights?

And, of course - conversely... since these gun-friendly types are so fond of the 'rights' of the american - how many of them do you think back the homosexual call for marriage equality?

Link it up please. I don't happen to know this guy's history. I was only pointing out the issue of sportsmanship. That kind of firepower is uncooth for hunting where I come from.

I assume this was in response to my post?

The gun was just an SKS. Uses a round less powerful than a 308. Yes, he had a 20 round magazine, but judging by how many people he took down with it, it was sighted in just fine, so he would have been okay for deer.

http://www.galleryofguns.com/ShootingTimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=6417

First paragraph.

The whole, "School yard massacre" situation is VERY old. A guy with an 18-wheeler could just as easily drive not only through the school yard, but through the school itself. Yet we don't psychologically examine every driver, do we?

School yard shootings are VERY few and far between. Banning guns doesn't do a whit of good for those.

It's all emotional rhetoric.

Not at all... it is a perfectly good response to what was posted before it... the other poster said he had no objection to drunken rednecks with armaments, because he was confident his quick trigger-finger would win out against them.

I pointed out that he (in a country of 300 million people) is perhaps a statistically small target for all the drunken rednecks to be immediately concerned with.

And, if you think about it... banning guns would have made a difference at Columbine... since the youths in question 'acquired' guns from a family-member's collection, and then went and proceded to play shoot-em-up on their schoolmates.

Or maybe you think they just stood in the classrooms and shouted "Bang" at people?

It is nothing to do with rhetoric or emotion - you should always look at the checks and balances you evaluate with... if you think guns are okay because you are a quicker shot - how about allowing for those who are unarmed?

And, of course - conversely... since these gun-friendly types are so fond of the 'rights' of the american - how many of them do you think back the homosexual call for marriage equality?

If our government must recognize the purely religious institution of marriage, you bet the government has no say in the matter of same sex marriage.

How's that?

I'd prefer it if our government didn't treat married or single couples differently at all, but since it's entrenched...everyone better be able to do it.

Frankly I don't care either way or another if people have guns. But if people choose to use them to shoot at other people then its a problem. Yet guns are just a machine you cannot blame them for it. People created guns and worse machines that kill tons more people. People should have the right to have a gun so they can protect themselves against the people who are not all there in the head or something is wrong with them somehow that they feel the need to shoot at people. They are probably just wanting their 15 minutes of fame, but its not the guns fault, but those people who pulled the trigger. Yet of course I realize that in Africa, I forget which country it was, but they get children to go kill their entire families by drug enducing them. Fun huh? Yet if my kid came at me with a gun, I'd think I'd have to take him/her down. Guns are just a part of life. Even if they were banned from the US its called the black market. People would still be able to get at them. Frankly most people who should not have guns get their guns through the black market. So getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is really going to solve much. We are the human species we adapt easily.

I assume this was in response to my post?

The gun was just an SKS. Uses a round less powerful than a 308. Yes, he had a 20 round magazine, but judging by how many people he took down with it, it was sighted in just fine, so he would have been okay for deer.

http://www.galleryofguns.com/ShootingTimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=6417

First paragraph.

Yeah that was response to you. So are you saying he should have been prevented from ownership or hunting? Domestic violence is very serious of course. But what about all those crappies? j/k
:)

And, if you think about it... banning guns would have made a difference at Columbine... since the youths in question 'acquired' guns from a family-member's collection, and then went and proceded to play shoot-em-up on their schoolmates.


Actually, guns are already banned on school property. Maybe if one of the teachers actually could have been armed, it could have been stopped much sooner as well. Those kids STOLE the weapons. Criminals will always find a way to "aquire" their tools. I blame the kids and the parents for what happened there, not an inanimate object.


It is nothing to do with rhetoric or emotion - you should always look at the checks and balances you evaluate with... if you think guns are okay because you are a quicker shot - how about allowing for those who are unarmed?

It is emotion. Fear is what is behind all the "reason" for banning guns. Bans have proven over the years that criminals will have whatever is banned and the law-abiding citizen will not. It doesn't work.

The best check against a criminal is an armed citizen. That's what interviewed convicted felons say. Their biggest fear is a target that is armed.

Yeah that was response to you. So are you saying he should have been prevented from ownership or hunting? Domestic violence is very serious of course. But what about all those crappies? j/k
:)

I think he should have been in jail for beating up his wife, and not in someone else's tree stand, picking off those it rightfully belonged to.

Our justice system is failing miserably.

If our government must recognize the purely religious institution of marriage, you bet the government has no say in the matter of same sex marriage.

How's that?

I'd prefer it if our government didn't treat married or single couples differently at all, but since it's entrenched...everyone better be able to do it.

Sorry, I was talking to Americans.

Or if you are American - how is it that you don't know that marriage isn't a religious institution??? Only the ceremony is religious - the 'marriage' itself is a civil affair.

But, you avoid the question... you posit that liberals opposing guns are hypocrits, because they complained about losses of other 'liberties'...

I respond, HOW MANY of the gun-friendly individuals - who constantly use the protection of liberty as a reason to own guns - actively protect the 'liberties' of the gay marriage supporter?

I guess we could look at the demographics of proportional gun ownership, and compare it to the states that voted to ban gay marriage in the last election referenda?

My point is that it wasn't a sovereign army - it was a military force... how can I explain this... okay - 6 guys cross the border from Canada and start shooting people - is America being 'invaded'? Is this an Army?


Depends. Do they have a leader and political/national affilitaion? If (for example) they're all Canadians killing people for PETA, I would say yes.


What about if the Canadian government SENT those 6 men... are they THEN an army?


Still yes.

You do know that Braveheart was a film, right? Or are you actually aware of some of the history behind it?

Yes, my having a degree in history helps. You do know Carlisle was indeed sacked, right?
(I tend to use common cultural references in my posts, so that they are more accessible to all. I could have gone on about any number of seiges, but that'd not be as easy to follow).


You would realise that the Scots were more of a resistance than an invasion - rebelling against a corrupt and unfair rule from another power.

They invaded another nation and attacked, the same way the English had done to them.
I don't care WHO it is. The Rebels invaded the Death Star's "airspace"!!


They didn't really 'loot and pillage a town that hadn't provoked them', did they? They fought back against an alien regime involving itself in domestic politics, and they targetted a military target - and also inflicted some civilian damage.

Yes, they did. Have you read up on this at all? The garrison was not NEAR the town. That is why the US troops didn't get there when the rampage started.


How about Iraq? They are hunting terrorists, but then a 3 year old girl gets shot - were they targetting toddlers? Should the 3 year old have been armed for her own protection?

How about it? Are you seriously equating an errant shot with willfull destruction of a town? What's next, 9/11 was just a form of protest??


Oh, and there never was an American "Civil War" - go check your history, then check the definition of a civil war.

Fine. The late unpleasantness. The war between the states. The blue vs. the grey. As I said before, I go by the COMMON terms. Splitting literary hairs doesn't win arguements.

BTW, I like how you consistently don't debate my counter examples, but merely bring up an ever more far-fetched example. :D

Actually, guns are already banned on school property. Maybe if one of the teachers actually could have been armed, it could have been stopped much sooner as well. Those kids STOLE the weapons. Criminals will always find a way to "aquire" their tools. I blame the kids and the parents for what happened there, not an inanimate object.

It is emotion. Fear is what is behind all the "reason" for banning guns. Bans have proven over the years that criminals will have whatever is banned and the law-abiding citizen will not. It doesn't work.

The best check against a criminal is an armed citizen. That's what interviewed convicted felons say. Their biggest fear is a target that is armed.

Guns are banned on school property. You realise that is utterly irrelevent, right? What, you think blowing your classmates faces off was going to be legal, without that 'protection'?

Yes... the kids STOLE the weapons... but, if there hadn't been a poorly protected supply available readily, in a familial home, they might NOT have stolen them... you see my point?

And, with no guns - I suspect 'Columbine' might have had a less fatal outlook, no?

And, you are wrong - Fear is not the only motivating force behind banning guns... logic actually argues against putting killing-power in the hands of psychologically untested individuals.

To mis-quote Blackadder, would you willingly put your John Thomas in the hands of a lunatic with a pair of scissors?

For the record - I am not anti-gun... and do believe in the right of citizens to be armed. I just think that there should be some rational system for allowing citizens to be armed.

Fine. The late unpleasantness. The war between the states. The blue vs. the grey. As I said before, I go by the COMMON terms. Splitting literary hairs doesn't win arguements.

BTW, I like how you consistently don't debate my counter examples, but merely bring up an ever more far-fetched example. :D

Interesting that the history student quibbles over the definition of 'invasion', and misses the obvious inaccuracy in the use of the name "the Civil War"

Sorry, I was talking to Americans.


Yup.


Or if you are American - how is it that you don't know that marriage isn't a religious institution??? Only the ceremony is religious - the 'marriage' itself is a civil affair.


Marriage is a religious issue. Marriage wasn't recognized originally in the US, by the government--at least it wasn't regulated by laws.


But, you avoid the question... you posit that liberals opposing guns are hypocrits, because they complained about losses of other 'liberties'...


Actually, I didn't. :) But I do think that way. Then again, I think conservatives are hypocrites for wanting to restrict other rights as well.


I respond, HOW MANY of the gun-friendly individuals - who constantly use the protection of liberty as a reason to own guns - actively protect the 'liberties' of the gay marriage supporter?


I don't actively protect anyone else's liberties but my own. That's what my job is. That being said, I'm certainly not going to protest gay marriage. It is absolutely none of my business what others do, as long as everybody is willing--that applies to pretty much every issue out there.

I protest things like the Patriot Act where I'm directly affected. Anything that takes freedom from citizens, I'm not too keen on.

Guns are banned on school property. You realise that is utterly irrelevent, right? What, you think blowing your classmates faces off was going to be legal, without that 'protection'?


That was my point. Gun control laws don't stop criminals.


Yes... the kids STOLE the weapons... but, if there hadn't been a poorly protected supply available readily, in a familial home, they might NOT have stolen them... you see my point?


I don't think you see mine. It's not the government's job to play the role of the parent. You don't ban weapons because the parents failed.


And, with no guns - I suspect 'Columbine' might have had a less fatal outlook, no?


My point is that they would have found the weapons some other way.


And, you are wrong - Fear is not the only motivating force behind banning guns... logic actually argues against putting killing-power in the hands of psychologically untested individuals.


Your fear of what they will do is what you are basing your "logic" on. Logic doesn't use emotions at all.


To mis-quote Blackadder, would you willingly put your John Thomas in the hands of a lunatic with a pair of scissors?


"Allowing" someone to own a weapon doesn't immediately put you or anyone else in danger like your analogy suggests. Apples and oranges. I want the best method to defend myself, since I most certainly don't trust the government or local police to do it for me. The Supreme Court of the US has already ruled that the police are not responsible for individual citizen's safety. So, if not them, who? I can answer that--I'm responsible for my own safety, and part of my strategy involves firearms. There are those out there that would like to see me defenseless. I don't appreciate that.


For the record - I am not anti-gun... and do believe in the right of citizens to be armed. I just think that there should be some rational system for allowing citizens to be armed.

Rights don't allow for allowances, unfortunately. Rational is a VERY subjective term, and won't work in a society of 300 million. :(

Marriage is a religious issue. Marriage wasn't recognized originally in the US, by the government--at least it wasn't regulated by laws.


When and where? The bulk of american law comes from European common laws, especially English law - which has long upheld marriage as a civil action.

You say it wasn't regulated by laws - but, as long as people have been marrying in the US, they have been combining estates, leaving properties and wealth, etc. in their wills, protecting assets and titles... all of which are civil affairs, and all of which are directly related to marriage.

So - as long as the foreigners have been in America - marriage has been a legal institution.

Or, maybe you were refering to native weddings?


I don't actively protect anyone else's liberties but my own. That's what my job is. That being said, I'm certainly not going to protest gay marriage. It is absolutely none of my business what others do, as long as everybody is willing--that applies to pretty much every issue out there.

I protest things like the Patriot Act where I'm directly affected. Anything that takes freedom from citizens, I'm not too keen on.

Anything that takes freedom from citizens... unless those citizens are someone else....

Anything that takes freedom from citizens... unless those citizens are someone else....

I will start with those threatened freedoms that directly attack how I operate, yes. If I ever have the time to go after the rest, then yes, I will do so. But, it seems that I have to defend my right to bear arms too much to defend something that doesn't affect me right now.

The Patriot Act affected more people than the hubbub about gay marriage. Also, the Patriot Act is already in place, and will require a LOT more effort to oust it.

I'm a Libertarian. I believe that the Federal Government should be miniscule, and not interfere with the lives of the citizens of the US. Yes, that means if two men or two women want to pursue everlasting happiness, they have no problems from me. They are free to do whatever they want. It's not my (or anyone else's) call on how they live their lives.

I might march with some members of the Pink Pistols, or some other pro-gun organization in the support of gay rights, but there has to be a common bond somewhere in the mix first. That's generally how humans work.

That was my point. Gun control laws don't stop criminals.


And neither does no gun control... but gun-control reduces the number of available weapons.


I don't think you see mine. It's not the government's job to play the role of the parent. You don't ban weapons because the parents failed.


Yes. If parents CANNOT be trusted with their children, the government steps in. You must have heard of this in cases of neglect or abuse. If the 'parent' is failing, the government must replace the parent.


My point is that they would have found the weapons some other way.


But, it would have been much harder to do, if there hadn't been a familial arsenal close to hand, no?


Your fear of what they will do is what you are basing your "logic" on. Logic doesn't use emotions at all.


Not at all. Reread my post, and explain where my logic was hinged on emotion?


"Allowing" someone to own a weapon doesn't immediately put you or anyone else in danger like your analogy suggests. Apples and oranges. I want the best method to defend myself, since I most certainly don't trust the government or local police to do it for me. The Supreme Court of the US has already ruled that the police are not responsible for individual citizen's safety. So, if not them, who? I can answer that--I'm responsible for my own safety, and part of my strategy involves firearms. There are those out there that would like to see me defenseless. I don't appreciate that.


And you having a firearm impinges on my safety - so you should be disarmed... your argument doesn't hold up.

Don't take it so personally - they aren't trying to disarm you, you egomaniac... they are trying to limit access to weapons... which will affect you, but only as a peripheral.

As I said - I am not anti-gun. Let people have weapons for self-defence... but, if you need an M16 for self-defence, you must be making some pretty serious social faux-pas.

Also, how about a mandatory, basic psychological profile, to ascertain whether a candidate is suited to owning a gun? Surely, if you think you are responsible enough to own a gun - you wouldn't object to such a control?


Rights don't allow for allowances, unfortunately. Rational is a VERY subjective term, and won't work in a society of 300 million. :(

Your argument is that rational thinking doesn't work in big societies?

I will start with those threatened freedoms that directly attack how I operate, yes. If I ever have the time to go after the rest, then yes, I will do so. But, it seems that I have to defend my right to bear arms too much to defend something that doesn't affect me right now.

The Patriot Act affected more people than the hubbub about gay marriage. Also, the Patriot Act is already in place, and will require a LOT more effort to oust it.

I'm a Libertarian. I believe that the Federal Government should be miniscule, and not interfere with the lives of the citizens of the US. Yes, that means if two men or two women want to pursue everlasting happiness, they have no problems from me. They are free to do whatever they want. It's not my (or anyone else's) call on how they live their lives.

I might march with some members of the Pink Pistols, or some other pro-gun organization in the support of gay rights, but there has to be a common bond somewhere in the mix first. That's generally how humans work.

I disagree - my support for "Anti-Facist Action" when I was at university was not linked directly to me... since I lived in a fairly cosmopolitan area, was not of a minority race, and was not being targetted by 'facist' elements.

I supported that organisation because they were resisting an oppression - albeit to a community I wasn't party to - and not because I had some vested interest.

So - maybe other humans don't 'work' like that?

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

How does making sure that felons don't get guns infringe? Look up "compelling state interest", please. It's what keeps freedom of religion from allowing human sacrifice.

And neither does no gun control... but gun-control reduces the number of available weapons.


At least with no gun control, it gives the citizenry a fighting chance, as opposed to turning them into unarmed victims.


Yes. If parents CANNOT be trusted with their children, the government steps in. You must have heard of this in cases of neglect or abuse. If the 'parent' is failing, the government must replace the parent.


You may not be anti-gun (your words), but you sure seem to love the idea of a nanny state. Not an insult, just an observation. But let's go with your example. Once the parents mess up, THEN the government steps in, not pre-emptively, like gun legislation does. You're using two different systems again. I have no problems with very stiff penalties for scum that use firearms to murder, rape, rob, etc., but only after the crime has been committed--not pre-emptively punishing those who haven't done anything.


But, it would have been much harder to do, if there hadn't been a familial arsenal close to hand, no?


We don't know if they had other connections or not. No one can say that it would have been all that much more difficult.


Not at all. Reread my post, and explain where my logic was hinged on emotion?


Where is the logic in assuming everyone is unstable, until tested? That sounds paranoid to me. An emotional response, if I'm not mistaken. It's also assuming guilty until proven innocent, something this country was not founded on.


And you having a firearm impinges on my safety - so you should be disarmed... your argument doesn't hold up.


How does me owning a firearm in any way threatens you? Other than emotionally, that is... There is no logical reason that me owning a specific tool threatens you, other than in your mind. It's not in my hand now, pointed at you, is it? No? Then there is no threat. Using your argument, my hammer is a threat to you. My screwdriver is a threat to you. All these tools are locked up right now. Unless you have one helluva safecracker, you (or anyone else for that matter) aren't getting to any of them without a LOT of effort.


Don't take it so personally - they aren't trying to disarm you, you egomaniac... they are trying to limit access to weapons... which will affect you, but only as a peripheral.


Good...name calling. The first sign that an argument is breaking down. And yes, you are trying to stop me from buying an AR-15 or an AK-47 because you can't stand the idea of a human owning one. You think it's too dangerous. You want to determine what others do. You want to control the actions of others who have done you or society absolutely no wrong. That's what you are trying to accomplish. Doesn't sound to liberating or free to me.


As I said - I am not anti-gun. Let people have weapons for self-defence... but, if you need an M16 for self-defence, you must be making some pretty serious social faux-pas.


There's the problem. YOU get to make the choice for ME as to how I live my life. Why is an M16 not a viable option? Why does your opinion get to affect me?


Also, how about a mandatory, basic psychological profile, to ascertain whether a candidate is suited to owning a gun? Surely, if you think you are responsible enough to own a gun - you wouldn't object to such a control?


Once again, who gets to determine what's acceptable? The government certainly isn't qualified to do it. I would object to just about any governmental control.


Your argument is that rational thinking doesn't work in big societies?

Common sense doesn't work in big societies--only on a small scale. Big government is bad--one of the main tenets of the Libertarian party. Too much money and too much external control of individuals' lives.

Hi all, First post!

I am continually amuzed at peoples insistance that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is an right with out qualification. Never do I hear anyone mention the first clause in that sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,".

The founders of this Great Nation spelt it out pretty clearly. They answered the why, not so people could hunt, or target shoot, or collect guns.... So I think that all people that want to own guns should join the National Guard in their respective States and have fun in Iraq. :sniper:

At least with no gun control, it gives the citizenry a fighting chance, as opposed to turning them into unarmed victims.


Fighting chance against what, all the other unarmed civilians?


You may not be anti-gun (your words), but you sure seem to love the idea of a nanny state. Not an insult, just an observation. But let's go with your example. Once the parents mess up, THEN the government steps in, not pre-emptively, like gun legislation does. You're using two different systems again. I have no problems with very stiff penalties for scum that use firearms to murder, rape, rob, etc., but only after the crime has been committed--not pre-emptively punishing those who haven't done anything.


I do believe in a nanny-state. I believe that most people are fundamentally incapabable of making good decisions with regard to their societies and themselves.

Just based on observation.

It's not a matter of pre-emptive punishment... if anything, since people are shot on fairly regualr basis, it would be a collective societal act after-the-fact... but it isn't a punishment. Therein lies the crux of the problem - you see it as a punishment, to not be allowed unrestricted access to deadly weapons... whereas other's see it as a preventative measure.


We don't know if they had other connections or not. No one can say that it would have been all that much more difficult.


It would have been more difficult... whether or not it was MUCH MORE difficult is immaterial. They had easy access to guns - and they would have had LESS EASY access to guns if there were no private ownership.


Where is the logic in assuming everyone is unstable, until tested? That sounds paranoid to me. An emotional response, if I'm not mistaken. It's also assuming guilty until proven innocent, something this country was not founded on.


It isn't assuming that everyone is unstable - it is assuming that any given person has the potential to be unstable - and you could quickly allay that potential hazard by a brief psychological screening.

Nothing to do with emotion. Nothing to do with guilt, or being proven innocent... but everything to do with a societal Duty of Care.

Do you think that Afghan visitors to prominent american landmarks should have unrestricted access to plastic explosives?


How does me owning a firearm in any way threatens you? Other than emotionally, that is... There is no logical reason that me owning a specific tool threatens you, other than in your mind. It's not in my hand now, pointed at you, is it? No? Then there is no threat. Using your argument, my hammer is a threat to you. My screwdriver is a threat to you. All these tools are locked up right now. Unless you have one helluva safecracker, you (or anyone else for that matter) aren't getting to any of them without a LOT of effort.


Not at all - why do you need the gun? To protect you.... from what? There is no overt threat - you are asking for access to weapons because you perceive a potential for threat.

Similarly - perhaps you should be disarmed because YOU present a perceived potential for threat.


Good...name calling. The first sign that an argument is breaking down. And yes, you are trying to stop me from buying an AR-15 or an AK-47 because you can't stand the idea of a human owning one. You think it's too dangerous. You want to determine what others do. You want to control the actions of others who have done you or society absolutely no wrong. That's what you are trying to accomplish. Doesn't sound to liberating or free to me.


Not name calling - you keep referring to how it would punish YOU, how it would remove YOUR rights... this isn't about YOU - unless you make it so. If you chose to believe that the gun-control faction is targetting YOU, then you are party to an egomania.

Gun control is about removing risks, and that means potentially making it harder for people (collectively) to have weapons... they are interested in the potential benefits to society. Your argument is that YOU will, individually, have to give up some of your life-benefits. Which is the more egocentric view?


There's the problem. YOU get to make the choice for ME as to how I live my life. Why is an M16 not a viable option? Why does your opinion get to affect me?


It doesn't. Unless the government decides it does.

You don't complain when they protect you every night from foreign invaders, or when they provide a cure to an illness or when they arrest your neighbour for torturing infants, but you reject any concession you might have to make to dwell within such a society.


Once again, who gets to determine what's acceptable? The government certainly isn't qualified to do it. I would object to just about any governmental control.


Well done. I'm very pleased for you. Unfortunately - the US isn't actually an Anarchy yet, so your personal politics have no real bearing. The government IS qualified by virtue of the fact that it is elected... collectively, Americans have decided to qualify their government.


Common sense doesn't work in big societies--only on a small scale. Big government is bad--one of the main tenets of the Libertarian party. Too much money and too much external control of individuals' lives.

I have never encountered a commodity as poorly titled as 'common sense'... since I have seen no evidence to suggest it is common, at all... but rationality (which is what I was talking about) doesn't have to be limited by numbers of people.

Would you put your hand in a food processor, while it was working? No - because that would be irrational.

Would you put your hand in a food processor, while it was working - IF you lived in a nation with 300 million people>? No - still irrational, no matter how many people.

Interesting that the history student quibbles over the definition of 'invasion', and misses the obvious inaccuracy in the use of the name "the Civil War"

In that the use of the name Civil War is the one used by just about everyone when defining the American 1861-1865 period. I also say:
BC instead of BCE
AD instead of CE
Bombay instead of Mumbai

However, I do not say:
Czechoslovakia, when referring to post 1993 Czech Republic or Slovakia

... all because of common parlance.

And I call an invasion an invasion.
I am not quibbling. I know what it means. :)

Fighting chance against what, all the other unarmed civilians?


Actually, I was going for the armed criminals. Which they still will be, regardless of whatever firearms regulation is put in place.


I do believe in a nanny-state. I believe that most people are fundamentally incapabable of making good decisions with regard to their societies and themselves.


Ah, things are beginning to make sense now. This country was based on personal responsibility, not a socialist government making all your decisions and controlling all your actions. Freedom is based on letting people soar or crash on their own. By their own efforts. The country you want is not the US.


It's not a matter of pre-emptive punishment... if anything, since people are shot on fairly regualr basis, it would be a collective societal act after-the-fact... but it isn't a punishment. Therein lies the crux of the problem - you see it as a punishment, to not be allowed unrestricted access to deadly weapons... whereas other's see it as a preventative measure.


Yup. I see it as control. You telling me what I can or cannot do, when I'm not hurting anything or anyone. That just doesn't make sense to me.


It would have been more difficult... whether or not it was MUCH MORE difficult is immaterial. They had easy access to guns - and they would have had LESS EASY access to guns if there were no private ownership.


It's irrelevant, since we'll never know either way.


It isn't assuming that everyone is unstable - it is assuming that any given person has the potential to be unstable - and you could quickly allay that potential hazard by a brief psychological screening.


By forcing someone to use your standards. Don't you see that? You want to force someone else to do something they don't want to do. How free is that?


Nothing to do with emotion. Nothing to do with guilt, or being proven innocent... but everything to do with a societal Duty of Care.


I don't seem to recall that in the Bill of Rights. There is no such entity, "Duty of Care". If you want to try to parent the nation, go ahead and try. You don't have any more qualifications to tell anyone else what to do or how to go about it. Why do you get to decide for me?


Do you think that Afghan visitors to prominent american landmarks should have unrestricted access to plastic explosives?


The Constitution only applies to citizens. Not visitors from other countries.


Not at all - why do you need the gun? To protect you.... from what? There is no overt threat - you are asking for access to weapons because you perceive a potential for threat.
[/QUOTE

Actually, no. I'm being prepared. Like owning band-aids. I hope I never have to use the firearm in self defense, but if I need to, I'd like it to be available.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Similarly - perhaps you should be disarmed because YOU present a perceived potential for threat.


See, there's the difference. I'm not a threat. I'm only a potential threat. You are a threat right now, determined to take control of my life, by taking away tools I legally purchased. I call that theft.


Not name calling - you keep referring to how it would punish YOU, how it would remove YOUR rights... this isn't about YOU - unless you make it so. If you chose to believe that the gun-control faction is targetting YOU, then you are party to an egomania.


Not true. I'm stating fact. Anyone that goes after my freedoms is threatening me directly--and any other INDIVIDUAL who also happens to own a gun.


Gun control is about removing risks, and that means potentially making it harder for people (collectively) to have weapons... they are interested in the potential benefits to society. Your argument is that YOU will, individually, have to give up some of your life-benefits. Which is the more egocentric view?


Gun control is about CONTROL. It's right in there. America was based on the individual over society, that's why we're a federal republic, and not a democracy. It has always been about the individual. They aren't benefits. They're rights. The right to defend oneself. You want to limit how I can go about that. You want to control others.


It doesn't. Unless the government decides it does.


Oh, the government decides for us now? I don't think you know what country you're supposed to be in.


You don't complain when they protect you every night from foreign invaders, or when they provide a cure to an illness or when they arrest your neighbour for torturing infants, but you reject any concession you might have to make to dwell within such a society.


Actually, one of the few things the government is supposed to facilitate IS the defense of the nation and its citizens from invasion. The government doesn't provide cures to illnesses. Private companies do that. The government is supposed to be less than 1/10th of the size it is today. We're not supposed to be taking money from citizens, we're not supposed to have a standing army, and we're not supposed to infringe upon people's rights.


Well done. I'm very pleased for you. Unfortunately - the US isn't actually an Anarchy yet, so your personal politics have no real bearing. The government IS qualified by virtue of the fact that it is elected... collectively, Americans have decided to qualify their government.


I said Libertarian, not anarchist. Look 'em up. Government and virtue used in the same sentence....yikes. The government is FAR from qualified. Just because they were elected (only in SOME posts, by the way), doesn't mean they somehow are smarter or wiser than any other citizen. They just had more time and money on their hands to get elected.


Would you put your hand in a food processor, while it was working? No - because that would be irrational.

Would you put your hand in a food processor, while it was working - IF you lived in a nation with 300 million people>? No - still irrational, no matter how many people.

Yup, and yet you see a tool that doesn't move on its own as a threat to you. I call that irrational.

Hi all, First post!

I am continually amuzed at peoples insistance that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is an right with out qualification. Never do I hear anyone mention the first clause in that sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,".

The founders of this Great Nation spelt it out pretty clearly. They answered the why, not so people could hunt, or target shoot, or collect guns.... So I think that all people that want to own guns should join the National Guard in their respective States and have fun in Iraq. :sniper:

Please read the responses to this in the thread so we don't have to rehash it again.

A clip is not a magazine. Calling a clip a magazine is similar to calling a boot a sock or a fork a mouth. A clip loads loads a magazine.
Yer not in teh militia.Go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7583572&postcount=105). This post is already too long without me reposting relevent quotes.
AWB=GoodGo here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7583572&postcount=105). This post is already too long without me reposting relevent quotes.

Check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/national/main614048.shtml
Half a million people in 6 months sounds like an invasion to me.Well, first, I wasn't referring to that, and second, it doesn't to me.
Sort of. The 1994 act had several facets, including automatics, semi-automatics, etc.Its definition specifically says semi-automatic.
I know what semi-automatic means. 28 years in the Military has provided me with a couple of little clues about weapons.Military experience does not equate to military knowledge.
Such as lifting the assult rifle banThere's no such thing.
I believe in allowing hunting guns. But no Semi-Auto, and no hand guns.What about a semi-automatic hunting gun? Or a hunting pistol? (Yes, there are such things.)
A bit misinformed. The ban BANNED the M-16. Flat out, you had to buy the AR-15 or some other "knockoff version".Hmmm...No legal use of the term assault weapon that I have seen even mentions the M16, although one DOES label the "Colt AR-15" an assault weapon.
Second, handguns are completely unnecessary. The only point is to protect yourself from some psycho with a similar weapon.What about protecting you against someone with a non-handgun firearm? Or throwing knives? Or a spear? You could also use your handgun for target shooting.
European nations that have banned handguns do not see the number of gun related fatalities as the United States.If you start very low, it'll take a while to reach high.
Owning a weapon that can very easily modified (do a google search, you will find them) into automatic weaponry will only cause problems.The AWB had nothing to do with that.
hey im sorry to pick on you but you are wrong. yes we would probably be bombed FIRST but foot soldiers would still be used. If only for the simple fact that they only way you can take and hold land is through ground forces.Indeed. You can't invade with bombers, unless your plan is to park them in your enemy's airports (or something similar).
And yes, the best way to win a fight is to never start one, but if that's how you truly feel, then you don't need a gun in the first place.What if the other person starts the fight unprovoked?
The 2nd amendment was written at a time when the most accurate firearm was a musket rifle; they did not have the ridiculously powerful weapons we have today.Ridiculously powerful? A .69-caliber rifle is deadly, as is a .223-caliber rifle.
The 2nd amendment is outdated and should be repealed, I think; there's no true reason to own a firearm anymore.There are plenty of reasons. Their validity is what's up for questioning.
And no, hunting is not an excuse; there's no need to hunt for food anymore; just go to your local market and buy it.Hunting is more humane, is it not?
Anyway - a Theocracy takes power, obviously with the necessary backing of the military (cause how else would it get there?)Election?
Uh...yeah. Semi-automatic does apply to revolvers. Instead of ejecting the shell and flinging it to the ground, it hangs on to them, but the shell is out of the firing chamber (the part of the cylinder that isn't lined up with the barrel anymore...). You still only pull the trigger to advance the next round. It's a semi-auto. Just because you say that revolvers are exempt doesn't make them so.Doesn't the bolded (by me) bit make them not semi-automatic?
People rarely kill people, guns more often.Most violent crime in the USA is not committed with a firearm.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm
Yes... the kids STOLE the weapons... but, if there hadn't been a poorly protected supply available readily, in a familial home, they might NOT have stolen them... you see my point?

And, with no guns - I suspect 'Columbine' might have had a less fatal outlook, no?Banning guns doesn't make them disappear.
And, you are wrong - Fear is not the only motivating force behind banning guns... logic actually argues against putting killing-power in the hands of psychologically untested individuals.So psychologically test everyone who wants to buy a gun. You don't have to ban guns to try to keep them away from those who would fail.

And, of course - conversely... since these gun-friendly types are so fond of the 'rights' of the american - how many of them do you think back the homosexual call for marriage equality?

A red herring, sweeping generalization and a false analagy, all in one statement. Not bad.

My position on gay marriage aside, show me in the constitution where it guarantees the right of marriage equality or marraige at all.

They can't do it now, because civilians can't buy missiles and launchers. The government can track it all they want. So what? They are not committing any crime with the material before they target the missiles and launch them, by which time they can't be stopped. That's the beauty of it.
Ah. You mean the same way driving a car is not committing a crime until you have a dozen tequilas and then go speeding through a traffic light?
You mean the same tracking that gave us the intel for the Iraq war? :D


You offered an extreme opinion on what should be legal to acquire and own, I gave an extreme example of how those things could be used. The use of SAMs wouldn't be the least bit extreme, either, since that already happens all over the middle east (only they have a hell of a time trying to get their hands on those SAMs). And yeah, that would be funny if, you know, I were trying to justify why guns should be banned.

And, BTW, why do you figure I want to ban guns? Certainly I haven't said I do.

It’s not an extreme opinion. It is my opinion. I’ll give you a hint – my favorite philosophers are Mill and Plato. I’m anti-prohibition and I’m very, very, very anti-censorship. Gun control legislation is censorship.

Um, no. Governments own SAMs, people don’t. If you mean RPGs or LAWs or something, sure. A SAM is a battery of missiles which is out of reach for even the average Afghani Warlord.

Because in all of your posts, you're spouting arguements that are for gun control.


How was that proven, exactly, and why has it got to do with just technology? In Finland, alcoholic drinks over 60% proof were banned for a long time after the prohibition (until quite rather recently). The ban was quite effective and had no real ill effects (except on the sales of some liquors in Scandinavia). This and similar examples, like that of the Japanese car HP limits, from all over the world shows that laws using such grading can and do work.
Because you’re saying it is okay to own a 150 year old gun (bolt action rifle), but not okay to own a 60 (or less) year old gun (M-60, whatever).

Simply put, there has never been successful legislation against technology, ever. Carterphone won against AT&T. RIAA lost against peer to peer network sharing. Hollywood lost against television. I can’t even count how many times Tesla or Edison or someone else lost an invention to mass production/media.

Right. Except for those folks going blind drinking “bath-tub hooch”? Also, Finland has a small population in a small territory that is (by and large) homogenous. Makes it a bit easier to pass and enforce laws, eh? :)

Those aren’t laws restricting technology, those are laws (as you say) “grading” it. Much like emissions in the US on cars. I am NOT against having a standard. For example, you shouldn’t be able to drive a Pacer (which explodes in certain unfortunate situations). I AM against banning small cars outright, however, due to (insert any reason you want here).


There's a huge difference in how a bolt action rifle functions and how an assault rifle functions. Legislation can be made that distuingishes between the two.

And I can make legislation that distinguishes between a 1965 Chrysler and a 2002 Chrysler. Both are cars. Both burn gasoline. Just as both the guns you have above both fire cartridges and both are rifles. Technology is what you’re talking about, not the good itself.
Why not ban all SUVs? Station wagons “suffice”! You’re still making a TECHNOLOGY argument here.


You might think that's not fair, based on your reading of the constitution, your fear of being attacked and needing the weapons to defend yourself, your will to have any item you want that does not harm others just through existing, or based on some other reason. That doesn't mean the law doesn't work, or that there aren't any good reasons to implement such a law.
Is banning tracked vehicles from driving on roads a "technological argument"?


If you want to make an argument that in order to get a license to own an “assault rifle” (which I won’t even get into how that is a misnomer), that’d be fine. If you want to make an argument that the “assault rifle” needs to pass this or that test that it operates properly, that’s fine.
But arguing that I shouldn’t have an “assault rifle”? Give up your car unless it’s a Ford Taurus. Give up your TV if it is bigger than 26”. Buy only the bean burrito. Screw that!!

I have no such fear. What I’m AGAINST is encroachment on liberty. I am against being oppressed by ANYONE that thinks I should not own X, think Y, or read Z.

Of course not. Do not the tracked vehicles destroy the pavement?


And I don't expect them to come easily. A 3-month Safe Surface-to-Air Missile Handling 101 course is not going to stop someone who wants to blow up a few passenger aircraft. Careful screening might, but I assume that would go against several readings of the 2nd amendment, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- against your principles.

Nope. If you go back and read, I’m all about licensing and law enforcement, so long as it ADDS, not SUBTRACTS from the freedom of the citizen
. In fact, please go back and read this one: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7582730&postcount=77
(page 6 in this thread)

3 Month? Not likely. More like: first have your pistol & revolver license. Then your full automatic license. Then your propellant arms license. I can't set a time limit on that, no more than one can say college takes exactly 4 years for everyone.

Exactly! Nor will NOT having that license stop them!

You’re off. Maybe you’re thinking of Zaxon, whom is less pro-license than I am.


Completely different. It's illegal to make those bombs. You buy the fertilizer and the gasoline (or whatever else you use to build the bomb), the feds pay attention, notice you're building a bomb and arrest you. In the case of the missiles, however, the people getting ready to launch them are not committing any crime, assuming acquiring and owning the missiles is legal. In other words, I don't want to ban fertilizer and trucks -- it's enough for me that making an ANFO bomb and driving it around in a truck is banned.

Is it different? It’s illegal to make a Honda non-street legal, too. But I know of several. You want to ban the (licensed) grenade launcher, but yet allow fertilizer and trucks. Both kill. What’s the difference? That you can use “the fertilizer for something else”? Right. I’ll use the grenade launcher for smoke rounds at my band’s concerts. Fair use? ;)


I believe the argument is that some items are so dangerous when used, and there is no practical way to stop them from being used, that banning them and thus "limiting personal freedoms" is preferable to taking the risk of them being used in an exceptionally illegal manner.

Great. I’m going to start taking away all the Bibles, Torahs and Korans immediately. They all talk about sex and sin and (given the current climate in the world) are OBVIOUSLY dangerous to the populace. Guns. Books. No difference. In fact, the books are MORE dangerous.


I wouldn't know about the rest. I live in a country where over 90% of the population is "liberal" by some definitions thrown around here.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Macnasia
This is why background checks are a good thing.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

So, basically, you are saying that your right to bear arms is more important than MY right to feel relatively safe walking down the street, that I know that some lunatic isn't able to easily purchase a gun, and blow my brains out for the hell of it.

No, we don't want to ban guns, but we want to make it difficult for bad people to get guns. We want to be sure those who DO own guns are licensed, and registered, that they have passed a course in gun safety, so that innocent peope are not killed with that gun. But, again, I understand. Your right to have guns is more important than other people's right to feel somewhat safe. I get it.

I understand completely...persoanl accountability applies to everyone else, but not to gun owners...or those who want to own guns. They should not have to bear any responsibility for showing that they are buying a gun with the intention of hunting something other than humans, and of course, they should have no accountability for their actions, or the actions others may take with the guns they have purchased, when they fail to properly secure their guns. I understand completely.

Your rights, as a gun owner, supercede everyone else's rights. I get it. I competely understand.

But, please tell me why ANYONE needs a fucking AK-47 assault rifle to go hunting, or, in fact, to do anything other than annhilate people with it?

Look, I myself own a gun. A shotgun. I have it for home defense. I own a 12-gauge Mossberg, pistol-grip, pump-action shotgun. I took safety classes, to insure I knew how to safely handle, and store my gun. It is registered, and I have a permit for home defense use. I see no infringement on my rights, having gone thru these things. I see that as a balance, to insure OTHER'S rights...to be safe from any actions I may take, through negligence, malevolence, or just plain incompetence...are equally protected.

Just as I have a right to be safe in my home...and I have the shotgun for that reason...others have a right to know that they can be reasonably sure that they are safe from the possibility I might misuse my gun...and use it for a purpose other than the stated purpose, i.e. home defense.

Others have a right to know that I, as the owner of this shotgun, am a law-abiding citizen, and that I have taken the necessary steps and classes, and ongoing training, to be sure no one is intentionally, or unintentionally harmed by my weapon, uness of course, they are foolish enough to place me in a position where my safety is threatened, in which case, I have the right, the tools, and the talent...to protect myself.

People have a right to know I am not some whack-job just released from a mental hospital, and that I am not likely to go on a rampage, hunting humans for the hell of it. They have a right to know that I practice gun safety, that I store my gun in such a manner so that unauthorized people do not get their hands on my gun and cause harm to others.

What the hell is wrong with that?

Sorry, pal...but along with rights come RESPONSIBILITIES!! Too often, it seems the gun nuts want all the rights, but none of the responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Or SHOULD go along with gun ownership.

The problem with living in a free and democratic society in which EVERYONE'S rights are equally important (at least they say so) is that a balance must be struck between people whose rights directly conflict other people's rights. and that is where RESPONSIBILTY comes into play.

No one wants to ban your guns, really. We just want you to take the responsibility that goes along with your rights...and we DO want to take guns away from people who should not have guns, namely, people who are going to go out and use their guns to deprive other people of THEIR rights to life, liberty, and property. By this I mean crackpots, mental cases, and criminals.

And if you want an AK-47, you're a crackpot. Please tell me what in the name of GOD do you need or want with a fucking AK-47 or an Uzi? You sure as hell don't need anything like that to hunt deer or bear, or anything else you might like to hunt...legally, anyway. Maybe you want a gun like that so you can hunt humans? In which case, you shouldn't have a gun.

The only thing an AK-47 or an Uzi is good for is to kill people.

Sorry, but I question the motives of ANYONE who wants a fucking assault rifle. They call them ASSAULT weapons for a reason. They are only good for ASSAULTING PEOPLE. Sorry, Bub, but I have a right not to be assaulted by you and your gun. I have a right to not live in fear of you, or what you might do, or be planning to do to me, with your assault rifle.

And if you have nothing to hide, and your intentions of wanting a gun are legitimate, why should you object to a background check?

Arms can mean military grade or not. It's our right.

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power (I dunno why, but that isn't too far fetched and that scares the shit out of me)? We have nothing to fight it. Good one, Liberals. Way to fail.

WHAT THE DEUCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

First of all, that or another stiuation like that would never happen.

Second, how in the hell do you think that a bunch of people who loves their guns and country can go up against the most powerful, best funded military in human history. The fact is that since colonial times in which there was no kevlar or real military strategy beyond "you line up over there, and we'll line up over here, and we'll take turns killing as many people as we can" Today, the United States Armed Forces could probably function as an army as one, but prefers to have over 500,000 soldiers in service. Liberals won't be the reason that the United States falls, the right wing episcopalians who believe that God, in all his glory, sent George Bush as part of His Devine Will to rule America, and that if a person is religious enough, they must be the right one to run a country.

Arms can mean military grade or not. It's our right.

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power (I dunno why, but that isn't too far fetched and that scares the shit out of me)? We have nothing to fight it. Good one, Liberals. Way to fail.

WHAT THE DEUCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

First of all, that or another stiuation like that would never happen.

Second, how in the hell do you think that a bunch of people who loves their guns and country can go up against the most powerful, best funded military in human history. The fact is that since colonial times in which there was no kevlar or real military strategy beyond "you line up over there, and we'll line up over here, and we'll take turns killing as many people as we can," it has become increasingly unrealistic to revolt against a government. Today, the United States Armed Forces could probably function as an army as one, but prefers to have over 500,000 soldiers in service. Liberals won't be the reason that the United States falls, the right wing episcopalians who believe that God, in all his glory, sent George Bush as part of His Devine Will to rule America, and that if a person is religious enough, they must be the right one to run a country.

WHAT THE DEUCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

First of all, that or another stiuation like that would never happen.

Second, how in the hell do you think that a bunch of people who loves their guns and country can go up against the most powerful, best funded military in human history. The fact is that since colonial times in which there was no kevlar or real military strategy beyond "you line up over there, and we'll line up over here, and we'll take turns killing as many people as we can" Today, the United States Armed Forces could probably function as an army as one, but prefers to have over 500,000 soldiers in service. Liberals won't be the reason that the United States falls, the right wing episcopalians who believe that God, in all his glory, sent George Bush as part of His Devine Will to rule America, and that if a person is religious enough, they must be the right one to run a country.


Then you agree that the insurgency in Iraq can be quickly and easily crushed, and we are just fucking with those people?

(Do you even know what an episcopalian is?)

Originally Posted by Macnasia
This is why background checks are a good thing.



So, basically, you are saying that your right to bear arms is more important than MY right to feel relatively safe walking down the street, that I know that some lunatic isn't able to easily purchase a gun, and blow my brains out for the hell of it.

No, we don't want to ban guns, but we want to make it difficult for bad people to get guns. We want to be sure those who DO own guns are licensed, and registered, that they have passed a course in gun safety, so that innocent peope are not killed with that gun. But, again, I understand. Your right to have guns is more important than other people's right to feel somewhat safe. I get it.

I understand completely...persoanl accountability applies to everyone else, but not to gun owners...or those who want to own guns. They should not have to bear any responsibility for showing that they are buying a gun with the intention of hunting something other than humans, and of course, they should have no accountability for their actions, or the actions others may take with the guns they have purchased, when they fail to properly secure their guns. I understand completely.

Your rights, as a gun owner, supercede everyone else's rights. I get it. I competely understand.

But, please tell me why ANYONE needs a fucking AK-47 assault rifle to go hunting, or, in fact, to do anything other than annhilate people with it?

Look, I myself own a gun. A shotgun. I have it for home defense. I own a 12-gauge Mossberg, pistol-grip, pump-action shotgun. I took safety classes, to insure I knew how to safely handle, and store my gun. It is registered, and I have a permit for home defense use. I see no infringement on my rights, having gone thru these things. I see that as a balance, to insure OTHER'S rights...to be safe from any actions I may take, through negligence, malevolence, or just plain incompetence...are equally protected.

Just as I have a right to be safe in my home...and I have the shotgun for that reason...others have a right to know that they can be reasonably sure that they are safe from the possibility I might misuse my gun...and use it for a purpose other than the stated purpose, i.e. home defense.

Others have a right to know that I, as the owner of this shotgun, am a law-abiding citizen, and that I have taken the necessary steps and classes, and ongoing training, to be sure no one is intentionally, or unintentionally harmed by my weapon, uness of course, they are foolish enough to place me in a position where my safety is threatened, in which case, I have the right, the tools, and the talent...to protect myself.

People have a right to know I am not some whack-job just released from a mental hospital, and that I am not likely to go on a rampage, hunting humans for the hell of it. They have a right to know that I practice gun safety, that I store my gun in such a manner so that unauthorized people do not get their hands on my gun and cause harm to others.

What the hell is wrong with that?

Sorry, pal...but along with rights come RESPONSIBILITIES!! Too often, it seems the gun nuts want all the rights, but none of the responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Or SHOULD go along with gun ownership.

The problem with living in a free and democratic society in which EVERYONE'S rights are equally important (at least they say so) is that a balance must be struck between people whose rights directly conflict other people's rights. and that is where RESPONSIBILTY comes into play.

No one wants to ban your guns, really. We just want you to take the responsibility that goes along with your rights...and we DO want to take guns away from people who should not have guns, namely, people who are going to go out and use their guns to deprive other people of THEIR rights to life, liberty, and property. By this I mean crackpots, mental cases, and criminals.

And if you want an AK-47, you're a crackpot. Please tell me what in the name of GOD do you need or want with a fucking AK-47 or an Uzi? You sure as hell don't need anything like that to hunt deer or bear, or anything else you might like to hunt...legally, anyway. Maybe you want a gun like that so you can hunt humans? In which case, you shouldn't have a gun.

The only thing an AK-47 or an Uzi is good for is to kill people.

Sorry, but I question the motives of ANYONE who wants a fucking assault rifle. They call them ASSAULT weapons for a reason. They are only good for ASSAULTING PEOPLE. Sorry, Bub, but I have a right not to be assaulted by you and your gun. I have a right to not live in fear of you, or what you might do, or be planning to do to me, with your assault rifle.

And if you have nothing to hide, and your intentions of wanting a gun are legitimate, why should you object to a background check?

It's nice that you are able to use such adult language to express your opinion.

I have a few questions..

Where does it say that pro-gun individuals feel their rights supercede averybody elses?

Do you mean Assault Rifles or Assault weapons? Do you even know the difference.

Did you know the reason they are called Assault Rifles is because of Adolf Hitler?

Do I "need" a reason to utilize my constitutionally given rights?

Why should I, as a law abiding citizen, need to prove my intentions? Aren't people still innocent until proven guilty?

Did you know that pistol grip on your shotgun effectively makes it an "assault weapon" by definition?

Why should Law abiding citizens be held to higher levels of responsibility/accountability than criminals?

Do you want the gov't telling you what you can and can't own?

And, of course - conversely... since these gun-friendly types are so fond of the 'rights' of the american - how many of them do you think back the homosexual call for marriage equality? Im all for Homosexual marriage equality and the right to bear arms, you are making a statement that has nothing to do with that topic as well as a stupid assumption on what ppl would who are for guns would and would not back. you have no support for that statement...lets stick to guns shall we?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Sorry, I was talking to Americans.

Or if you are American - how is it that you don't know that marriage isn't a religious institution??? Only the ceremony is religious - the 'marriage' itself is a civil affair.

But, you avoid the question... you posit that liberals opposing guns are hypocrits, because they complained about losses of other 'liberties'...

I respond, HOW MANY of the gun-friendly individuals - who constantly use the protection of liberty as a reason to own guns - actively protect the 'liberties' of the gay marriage supporter?
QUOTE] what you are thinking of is Civil Union that is different from marriage Civil Union is the Government equivalent of marriage. However marriage is a religious thing if used by that term. I am an American I am for guns I am for Gay rights to a Civil Union with equal rights of a marriage but a CHURCH should not be forced to change its religion to accomodate some a group because that goes against the churches rights. also no one is avoiding the question except you, Gay marriage is irrelavent to guns stick to the topic.

I protest things like the Patriot Act where I'm directly affected. Anything that takes freedom from citizens, I'm not too keen on.
GOD DAMN PATRIOT ACT may it burn in hell

what you are thinking of is Civil Union that is different from marriage Civil Union is the Government equivalent of marriage. However marriage is a religious thing if used by that term. I am an American I am for guns I am for Gay rights to a Civil Union with equal rights of a marriage but a CHURCH should not be forced to change its religion to accomodate some a group because that goes against the churches rights. also no one is avoiding the question except you, Gay marriage is irrelavent to guns stick to the topic.
Then remove the term marriage from the lawbooks entirely. The only thing would be civil unions and they would constitute two consenting adults over the age of 18 who are more than 5 steps of relation away from one another.

Ah. You mean the same way driving a car is not committing a crime until you have a dozen tequilas and then go speeding through a traffic light?To nitpick, you're committing a crime as soon as you're preparing to drive off after having drunk those dozen tequilas (where I come from, just sitting in the driver's seat while drunk is, strictly speaking, a crime). For just driving through a red light and speeding off, the analogy works, sort of. It's a bit more difficult to kill the president, a hundred congressmen and several JCOSs, or to crack open nuclear power plants with speeding cars than with cruise missiles. And then there's the issue of what use is a cruise missile vs. a car.

It’s not an extreme opinion. It is my opinion.Just because something is your opinion doesn't disqualify it from being an extreme opinion. I don't have statistics from the US, but saying that even LAWs should be legal for civilians to own is absolutely considered extreme here. I imagine there are more members of either the "extreme right" or the "extreme left" than people who think heavy weaponry should be legal in the US.

Governments own SAMs, people don’t. If you mean RPGs or LAWs or something, sure. A SAM is a battery of missiles which is out of reach for even the average Afghani Warlord.So you are saying that SAMs should still be illegal for people to own? Because otherwise they can just go shopping for Stingers. With a unit replacement cost of $38,000, I doubt they'd be too expensive for anyone seriously contemplating shooting down passenger aircraft.

Because in all of your posts, you're spouting arguements that are for gun control.Spouting, indeed... I'm pretty sure I've mostly given arguments that are against what certain people, who happen to be anti-gun control (or pro-gun ownership, or whatever), have said.

Right. Except for those folks going blind drinking “bath-tub hooch”?Liquors at 80% or more proof are expensive. "Bathtup hooch" is not, and my understanding is that cottage industry alcoholic drinks are very rare around here. Liquor smuggled accross our Russian border is equally cheap, and its demand is not dependent on such a ban. The law did not, and could not, protect drunks living in poverty, since they are usually not dependent on legally bought alcohol anyway. It did work to reduce the amount of "accidental drunkenness" by making sure people legally buying alcohol have to drink a significant amount of the liquid before they drop. The illegal alcohol market was not affected by the law.


Also, Finland has a small population in a small territory that is (by and large) homogenous. Makes it a bit easier to pass and enforce laws, eh? :)A population slightly smaller than that of Indiana living in a region slightly larger than Texas. Would such laws be easy to pass and enforce on a state level? What does "homogenous" population mean in that context (racial/ethnic/religious background?) and what does it have to do with the ease of enforcing laws?

Those aren’t laws restricting technology, those are laws (as you say) “grading” it. Much like emissions in the US on cars. I am NOT against having a standard. For example, you shouldn’t be able to drive a Pacer (which explodes in certain unfortunate situations). I AM against banning small cars outright, however, due to (insert any reason you want here).Going back to firearms from that analogy, banning machineguns would be bad (because that's banning a technology), but banning machineguns with a cyclic RoF over 1000rpm might not be if there's a reason to do so (because that's merely grading it)? I'd say engine power output limits for cars, or alcohol proof levels, etc, are more equivalents of cyclic RoF or caliber in guns than of pressure tolerance, for example.

It would be more logical (not neccessarily what I'd want to do, but more logical) for me to draw the line with definitions such as "fully automatic" or "semi-automatic" or similar, not by RoF, bullet weight, muzzle energy or any other such "grading" factor. It would make more sense to differentiate by law between clearly separate stages of technology than between two very similar items on either side of an arbitrary line. Going back to cars, it's as though there was a separate technology that would be required to get the car to move faster than 180km/h, but which has very limited use other than that (might increase acceleration in some circumstances, for example). I'm sure you'd then see people who'd want to restrict civilian access to cars using that technology, and there would be a logical basis for those arguments.

“assault rifle” (which I won’t even get into how that is a misnomer)It's the given name of the particular type of weapon. It is distuingished, as clearly as guns can be, from SMGs, light machine guns and battle rifles (or automatic rifles). It is used as the official term for such weapons in most modern armies and by nearly all firearms manufacturers. In the few cases it's not used, this is because of PR. I can't think of any other reason why the XM8 project changed from Lightweight Assault Rifle to Battle Rifle -- especially since this weapon is obviously a lightweight assault rifle and obviously not a battle rifle.

If you really have a problem with that term, you need to get yourself a time machine and kill whoever it is (possibly quite a number of people) that thought to call the modified MP43 the Sturmgewehr 44.

Of course not. Do not the tracked vehicles destroy the pavement?I get the feeling from this that an argument counts as a "technological argument" only when you do not agree with it? Ie making tracked vehicles illegal to drive on roads is not a "technological argument" because you agree that they tear up a road and are thus a problem, while making assault rifles illegal is a "technological argument" because you do not see any reason to make them illegal?

Nope. If you go back and read, I’m all about licensing and law enforcement, so long as it ADDS, not SUBTRACTS from the freedom of the citizen.Licensing is not neccessarily the same as "careful screening", which is why I asked. There is no extensive background check or psychological screening when you get a driver's license. Not to mention that such screening would theoretically be easier for a government to pervert into restricting Joe Average's access to firearms.

Exactly! Nor will NOT having that license stop them!Not being sold those items, or indeed them not existing in any market they have access to, does stop them.

It’s illegal to make a Honda non-street legal, too. But I know of several.I trust the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies are keeping better track of large bombs being manufactured in the US than of car tuning.

You want to ban the (licensed) grenade launcher, but yet allow fertilizer and trucks. Both kill. What’s the difference? That you can use “the fertilizer for something else”? Right. I’ll use the grenade launcher for smoke rounds at my band’s concerts. Fair use? ;)Again, I did not say I want to ban grenade launchers. Any reference to them being illegal spawn from the fact that 40mm grenade launchers are, AFAIK, illegal for civilians to own in the US currently.

Trucks kill, absolutely, by the same definitions as bullets kill. Fertilizer, not quite. To make fertilizer an explosive at all, it needs to be treated (with diesel oil), which means you currently need to commit a crime with the fertilizer before it is even capable of becoming a weapon -- thus no need to ban it.

And yes, you could say silly things like firing smoke from grenade launchers at a concert makes grenade launchers as useful as cars. Similarly, you could say ATGMs are very useful for cutting down trees, demolishing big rocks, etc. Expect to be laughed at though -- good thing you included the smiley.

Great. I’m going to start taking away all the Bibles, Torahs and Korans immediately.Any bibles, torahs or korans used to bludgeon people to death you absolutely should take away. ;)

Oh, and by the way. You are America. I seriously doubt you have to worry much about your country being invaded to the point where Joe Normal has to step in to lend a hand.


Actually, the US is invaded daily by our neighboors from the south. They often cross with armed escorts and shootouts between Mexican military members and American voluntary un-paid militia men have occured. The federal government does virtually nothing about the border and that's why "Joe Normal" already has stepped in.


But lets just say... hypothetically, like, you were to be invaded and you army decimated. What chance would an 'organised milita' have against a force strong enough to decimate the US army.

Go read "The Art of War" or something and quit thinking like an American.

Second, how in the hell do you think that a bunch of people who loves their guns and country can go up against the most powerful, best funded military in human history.

i don't know, but people with a few old guns and a bit of ingenuity seem to routinely do fairly well for themselves against it.

Fertilizer, not quite. To make fertilizer an explosive at all, it needs to be treated (with diesel oil), which means you currently need to commit a crime with the fertilizer before it is even capable of becoming a weapon -- thus no need to ban it.
It's perfectly legal to make an ANFO slurry, but it's highly illegal to detonate it. Just like it's perfectly legal to make white or red phosphorus but illegal to use it in any public area.

having recently tried top convince my typical liberal new zealand friends that gun ownership is good i have several points as to how guns help everyday people. What criminal will commit a crime knowing anyone around them could be armed better than them and they could end up dead? sure every wacko gets a gun, but so do you. The police are not going to turn up instantly when your house is invaded, a gun will work instantly. If we have guns, we kill more criminals, this means criminal tendencies cannot be passed on from parents to children. It protects the country from invasion and terrorism, and most importantly, to protect us from our government.

It's perfectly legal to make an ANFO slurry, but it's highly illegal to detonate it. Just like it's perfectly legal to make white or red phosphorus but illegal to use it in any public area.Excuse me? Home-brewing high explosives (which ANFO is when used correctly) is perfectly legal in the US?

Uh, OK. Nevermind, then.

I'm a liberal and I don't support banning all guns. There, now you have to change your title.

So, basically, you are saying that your right to bear arms is more important than MY right to feel relatively safe walking down the street, that I know that some lunatic isn't able to easily purchase a gun, and blow my brains out for the hell of it.


See, there's the rub. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO "FEEL" SAFE IN THE CONSTITUTION. Safe is a state of mind, something that can't be legislated. You need to get deal with your fear, not punish those of us who are dealing with potentials and want to actively prepare ourselves.


No, we don't want to ban guns, but we want to make it difficult for bad people to get guns. We want to be sure those who DO own guns are licensed, and registered, that they have passed a course in gun safety, so that innocent peope are not killed with that gun. But, again, I understand. Your right to have guns is more important than other people's right to feel somewhat safe. I get it.


Again, you're talking about an imagined right. The only thing that controlling guns does is make it more difficult for those of us that respect the law from getting one legally. The criminals ALWAYS have ways of aquiring their firearms.


I understand completely...persoanl accountability applies to everyone else, but not to gun owners...or those who want to own guns. They should not have to bear any responsibility for showing that they are buying a gun with the intention of hunting something other than humans, and of course, they should have no accountability for their actions, or the actions others may take with the guns they have purchased, when they fail to properly secure their guns. I understand completely.


You sure DON'T understand. You don't have to show responsibility before anything. That is assumed. Once you have proven that you aren't responsible, THEN you get punished. Innocent (responsible) until proven guilty (not responsible). That's how rights tend to work. Geez! Where do you guys get this pre-emptive mentality???? It sounds like you were in favor of invading Iraq, too. That's the EXACT same thing--except instead of attacking foreigners, you are attacking your fellow citizens. You don't have to prove that you won't print slander before you can write, correct??? This is the same thing. You don't have to prove anything to anyone in the beginning.


Your rights, as a gun owner, supercede everyone else's rights. I get it. I competely understand.


My rights as a citizen of the United States supercede your rights when it comes to me and my property. And that's it. Your "feeling of safeness" isn't a right.


But, please tell me why ANYONE needs a fucking AK-47 assault rifle to go hunting, or, in fact, to do anything other than annhilate people with it?


Hmm, perhaps for what the 2nd amendment was originally penned? To defend against our own government.


Look, I myself own a gun. A shotgun. I have it for home defense. I own a 12-gauge Mossberg, pistol-grip, pump-action shotgun. I took safety classes, to insure I knew how to safely handle, and store my gun. It is registered, and I have a permit for home defense use. I see no infringement on my rights, having gone thru these things. I see that as a balance, to insure OTHER'S rights...to be safe from any actions I may take, through negligence, malevolence, or just plain incompetence...are equally protected.


These are all your opinions. Your opinions don't run MY (or anyone else's) life. Just yours. You don't have a say in what others do, until they are affecting you. You are not mom or dad to the rest of us. You are not our king or queen. You still don't get it, do ya? You don't have the RIGHT to tell anyone else how to live their lives. Nowhere is that guaranteed in the US Constitution. Show me that, then I might start thinking about changing my viewpoint. But, since I'm pretty sure I'm a bit more versed on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers behind it, I don't think you're gonna find it.


Just as I have a right to be safe in my home...


No, you don't. You have the right to defend yourself and your home. Not be or feel safe in it. That's all in your head, not in the Constitution.


and I have the shotgun for that reason...others have a right to know that they can be reasonably sure that they are safe from the possibility I might misuse my gun...and use it for a purpose other than the stated purpose, i.e. home defense.


Again, nope. There are no such rights.


Others have a right to know that I, as the owner of this shotgun, am a law-abiding citizen, and that I have taken the necessary steps and classes, and ongoing training, to be sure no one is intentionally, or unintentionally harmed by my weapon, uness of course, they are foolish enough to place me in a position where my safety is threatened, in which case, I have the right, the tools, and the talent...to protect myself.


If you want to lose any sort of tactical advantage, sure, you can tell people you have firearms. I choose not to. That's a privacy thing.


People have a right to know I am not some whack-job just released from a mental hospital, and that I am not likely to go on a rampage, hunting humans for the hell of it. They have a right to know that I practice gun safety, that I store my gun in such a manner so that unauthorized people do not get their hands on my gun and cause harm to others.


Again, not rights. Your perception of what isn't there.


What the hell is wrong with that?


The problem is, you are trying to control others. I have no problem if you do all that in regard to you and your life. I have a problem when you try to interfere with mine, when I have done nothing wrong to have to suddenly jump through a lot of hoops, pay money, and waste time, just to placate your fear.


Sorry, pal...but along with rights come RESPONSIBILITIES!! Too often, it seems the gun nuts want all the rights, but none of the responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Or SHOULD go along with gun ownership.


The responsibilities always have been and always will be there. If you kill someone with a gun, you are tried for murder. If you rape someone with a gun, you are tried for assault. If you rob someone with a gun, you are tried for armed robbery. It's ALL there. You just want to put added punishment on an inanimate object. Your "should" is only your opinion, and is most certainly not shared by all. You seem to think it is fact.


The problem with living in a free and democratic society in which EVERYONE'S rights are equally important (at least they say so) is that a balance must be struck between people whose rights directly conflict other people's rights. and that is where RESPONSIBILTY comes into play.


Freedom is the first right. No balance, no allowances. We are not a democracy where the majority rules. The individual is more important than the whole. You cannot sacrifice an individual's rights for the benefit of another, which is what you are proposing by gun legislation. Responsibility is assumed (innocent) until proven irresponsible (guilty). Get it through your head. Or do you really want a nanny state where the government tells you what to do all the time? You are walking that path.


No one wants to ban your guns, really. We just want you to take the responsibility that goes along with your rights...and we DO want to take guns away from people who should not have guns, namely, people who are going to go out and use their guns to deprive other people of THEIR rights to life, liberty, and property. By this I mean crackpots, mental cases, and criminals.


You can take the guns once they've proven they can't be responsible--not before. You want me to pay with time, effort, and money, just to please you. That really doesn't seem wrong to you, does it?


And if you want an AK-47, you're a crackpot.


Just because you're too scared of a chunk of metal doesn't make me insane.


Please tell me what in the name of GOD do you need or want with a fucking AK-47 or an Uzi? You sure as hell don't need anything like that to hunt deer or bear, or anything else you might like to hunt...legally, anyway. Maybe you want a gun like that so you can hunt humans? In which case, you shouldn't have a gun.


You obviously would never understand with that mindset. Once more, the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It's about protecting our country, our homes, and our lives from those, external and internal, that would take from us illegally. It's for DEFENSE.


The only thing an AK-47 or an Uzi is good for is to kill people.


Whatever.


Sorry, but I question the motives of ANYONE who wants a fucking assault rifle. They call them ASSAULT weapons for a reason. They are only good for ASSAULTING PEOPLE. Sorry, Bub, but I have a right not to be assaulted by you and your gun. I have a right to not live in fear of you, or what you might do, or be planning to do to me, with your assault rifle.


You have the right not to be assaulted by me. And if I were stupid enough to assault anyone, I would expect either life in prison or the death penalty, whichever is the most severe punishment available. Just as I would expect anyone to receive for assaulting another human being. You have no right to live without fear, strife, struggle, hunger, pain, or anything else remotely resembling that--those are part of life and cannot be prevented. Your imagination cannot be legislated (IE your fear of what people can or cannot do with a firearm)--guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution. My right to bear whatever arm I wish is guaranteed by the second (IE to not be determined by you). Deal with it.


And if you have nothing to hide, and your intentions of wanting a gun are legitimate, why should you object to a background check?

So, Catholics should register as Catholics? Gays should register as gays? Mothers should register as mothers? They shouldn't have anything to hide, right? But it's foolish to register daily life activities. My owning a firearm is nobody's business but my own. Not what I use it for (provided I'm not attacking people), not where I store it, not what I clean it with, not how I purchased it, nothing. Ashcroft said the same thing about people being watched by the US....if they have nothing to hide, then we can examine anyone at any time. This is what you are suggesting.

GOD DAMN PATRIOT ACT may it burn in hell

I'm with that.

I disagree - my support for "Anti-Facist Action" when I was at university was not linked directly to me... since I lived in a fairly cosmopolitan area, was not of a minority race, and was not being targetted by 'facist' elements.

I supported that organisation because they were resisting an oppression - albeit to a community I wasn't party to - and not because I had some vested interest.

So - maybe other humans don't 'work' like that?

Facism is a governmental issue. Yes, it applies to any citizen.

It's nice that you are able to use such adult language to express your opinion.

I have a few questions..

Where does it say that pro-gun individuals feel their rights supercede averybody elses?

Do you mean Assault Rifles or Assault weapons? Do you even know the difference.

Did you know the reason they are called Assault Rifles is because of Adolf Hitler?

Do I "need" a reason to utilize my constitutionally given rights?

Why should I, as a law abiding citizen, need to prove my intentions? Aren't people still innocent until proven guilty?

Did you know that pistol grip on your shotgun effectively makes it an "assault weapon" by definition?

Why should Law abiding citizens be held to higher levels of responsibility/accountability than criminals?


Do you want the gov't telling you what you can and can't own?

OK, I'll take those questions one at a time.

First, gun nuts ATTITUDE about it says that they feel their rights supercede everyone else's. sorry, but I have a right to be safe FROM YOU. I don't know what your intentions are with your gun.

Second, I'm not into semantics when talking about guns, really. I don't know a lot about them, because I am not a gun nut, an NRA member, or an aficienado. I just have one for home defense. I live in the kind of neighborhood that makes it prudent to have one for home defense.

In fact, the main reason I chose the particular gun I did is because you don't particularly have to be a good shot with it. The spread gets the bad guy. I've never had to use it, yet, except for the times I go out to the range to keep in practice, so that, God forbid, the time comes where I am forced to use it, I will be able to do so.

Third, no, you don't need a reason to exercise your constitutional rights...but remember that I, and others, also have Constitutional rights. you talk constantly about YOUR rights, YOUR rights, YOUR rights...but never about anyone else's rights...or YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. I have a right to be safe FROM YOU. And since I do not know your intentions, the knowledge that, in order to acquire the gun, you had to go through a background check...well, that makes it just a little easier for me to sleep at night, I don't have to worry quite as much about you. and, again, if your intentions are benign, and you have nothing to hide, why should you object to a background check?

Fourth, no, that is just the point. We are no longer innocent until proven guilty in this country. That's a nice little fairy tale. Fact is, you are presumed to be guilty, and then the government has to PROVE you are guilty. But the government already assumes you are guilty. Hey, look at Scott Petersen, for example. Did YOU believe he was innocent until proven guilty? Or did you just jump on the "he's guilty" bandwagon like so many others did? And if you are a law-abiding citizen, then why do you have a problem with being required to PROVE that, before you are allowed to purchase an item that makes it really easy for you to break the law?

Fifth, again, I'm not into the semantics. I'd rather that I didn't need to own my shotgun at all. The fact is I live in a rather rough neighborhood that makes owning such a weapon for home defense a good idea. Unfortunately, I'm not rich enough to live in one of those nice little gated communities where crime is zero.

Sixth...why do you seem to have such a problem with PROVING you are a law abiding, responsible person, if, in fact, you are, as you claim?

Seventh, I don't have a problem with gov't telling us what we can and cannot own, when the product in question is one which can be used to illegally deprive someone else of their rights to life, liberty, or property.

And, just as a final shot...ever hear of The Patriot Act? None of us are "innocent until proven guilty" anymore. Haven't you heard?

A red herring, sweeping generalization and a false analagy, all in one statement. Not bad.


Yep - pretty much exactly what it was designed to respond to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
So, basically, you are saying that your right to bear arms is more important than MY right to feel relatively safe walking down the street, that I know that some lunatic isn't able to easily purchase a gun, and blow my brains out for the hell of it.

Reply:
See, there's the rub. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO "FEEL" SAFE IN THE CONSTITUTION. Safe is a state of mind, something that can't be legislated. You need to get deal with your fear, not punish those of us who are dealing with potentials and want to actively prepare ourselves.

No, you are quite correct. I'm talking about COMMON-SENSE RIGHTS, not Constitutional rights.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
I understand completely...persoanl accountability applies to everyone else, but not to gun owners...or those who want to own guns. They should not have to bear any responsibility for showing that they are buying a gun with the intention of hunting something other than humans, and of course, they should have no accountability for their actions, or the actions others may take with the guns they have purchased, when they fail to properly secure their guns. I understand completely.

Reply:
You sure DON'T understand. You don't have to show responsibility before anything. That is assumed.

Not by me, it isn't! If you want an AK-47, I assume you want to hunt humans. That puts MY life in danger. I don't trust you, or your intentions, and it is just that simple.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Your rights, as a gun owner, supercede everyone else's rights. I get it. I competely understand.

Reply:
My rights as a citizen of the United States supercede your rights when it comes to me and my property. And that's it.

And when you buy a product that makes it easier for you to encroach upon MY property, and MY rights...it becomes MY FUCKING BUSINESS!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
People have a right to know I am not some whack-job just released from a mental hospital, and that I am not likely to go on a rampage, hunting humans for the hell of it. They have a right to know that I practice gun safety, that I store my gun in such a manner so that unauthorized people do not get their hands on my gun and cause harm to others.

Reply:
Again, not rights. Your perception of what isn't there.

So you are perfectly okay with, say, a guy like John Hinckley just bopping into a gun store on one of his unsupervised home visits, and buying a gun?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
What the hell is wrong with that? (referring to a background check)

Reply:
The problem is, you are trying to control others. I have no problem if you do all that in regard to you and your life. I have a problem when you try to interfere with mine, when I have done nothing wrong to have to suddenly jump through a lot of hoops, pay money, and waste time, just to placate your fear.

But aren't YOU trying to control others with your GUN?? I don't assume your intentions are benign, when you purchase an item that makes it easy for you to carry out malevolent intentions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Sorry, pal...but along with rights come RESPONSIBILITIES!! Too often, it seems the gun nuts want all the rights, but none of the responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Or SHOULD go along with gun ownership.

Reply:
The responsibilities always have been and always will be there. If you kill someone with a gun, you are tried for murder.

Really, now? Is that why, two years ago, my dear friend, Terrianne, was shot in the head in her own front lawn, in Jacksonville, Florida...and, to this day, no one has been charged with the crime? Is that why no one is doing the airdance for killing my dear friend in cold blood...and just because she happened to lead an alternative lifestyle?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
The problem with living in a free and democratic society in which EVERYONE'S rights are equally important (at least they say so) is that a balance must be struck between people whose rights directly conflict other people's rights. and that is where RESPONSIBILTY comes into play.

Reply:
Freedom is the first right. No balance, no allowances. We are not a democracy where the majority rules. The individual is more important than the whole. You cannot sacrifice an individual's rights for the benefit of another, which is what you are proposing by gun legislation. Responsibility is assumed (innocent) until proven irresponsible (guilty). Get it through your head.

Sure, that individual is "more important" when the individual in question is YOU. But not when it is ME. I completely understand yourtake here. Again, I state, I DO NOT ASSUME YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...AND NEITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT!! That's a nice fairy tale. Doesn't happen that way in the real world, Utopian Libertarian gun nut.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
No one wants to ban your guns, really. We just want you to take the responsibility that goes along with your rights...and we DO want to take guns away from people who should not have guns, namely, people who are going to go out and use their guns to deprive other people of THEIR rights to life, liberty, and property. By this I mean crackpots, mental cases, and criminals.

Reply:
You can take the guns once they've proven they can't be responsible--not before. You want me to pay with time, effort, and money, just to please you. That really doesn't seem wrong to you, does it?

And how much damage can you do with that gun before we get a chance to take it away from you? How many have to die, or be permanently ruined, like Brady, before you are then not allowed to have the gun anymore? How about stopping you in the first place, so that all those innocent poeople don't have to suffer or die, just for YOUR rights? What about THEIR fucking rights?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
And if you want an AK-47, you're a crackpot.

Reply:
Just because you're too scared of a chunk of metal doesn't make me insane.

Again, let me state, for the record, I AM NOT SCARED OF A CHUNK OF METAL. I AM SCARED OF YOU!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Sorry, but I question the motives of ANYONE who wants a fucking assault rifle. They call them ASSAULT weapons for a reason. They are only good for ASSAULTING PEOPLE. Sorry, Bub, but I have a right not to be assaulted by you and your gun. I have a right to not live in fear of you, or what you might do, or be planning to do to me, with your assault rifle.




You have the right not to be assaulted by me. And if I were stupid enough to assault anyone, I would expect either life in prison or the death penalty, whichever is the most severe punishment available.

Yeah, sure. And that is why Terrianne's murderer is still at large, and two years later, not even fucking IDENTIFIED!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
And if you have nothing to hide, and your intentions of wanting a gun are legitimate, why should you object to a background check?


Reply:
So, Catholics should register as Catholics? Gays should register as gays? Mothers should register as mothers? They shouldn't have anything to hide, right? But it's foolish to register daily life activities. My owning a firearm is nobody's business but my own. Not what I use it for (provided I'm not attacking people), not where I store it, not what I clean it with, not how I purchased it, nothing.

First, you are comparing apples to oranges. A Catholic doesn't hurt anyone by being Catholic. A gay doesn't hurt anyone by being gay. A mother certainly does register as being a mother...what do YOU think a birth certificate is? You, however, as a gun owner...you have the means by which to encroach upon MY rights, and MY property, and to take my life. And I have a right to know that you are not a crackpot, with intentions of blowing my head off with your precious fucking gun.

See, it is people like YOU...with your attitude, that scare the fuck outta the people who want to ban guns. I'm not one of them. but I DO want to make sure only good, law-abiding citizens are acquiring guns through legal means. Can't do anything about those who acquire firearms illegally, but damn it all, at least that makes it harder for a crackpot or criminal to get a gun! At least he can't just bop into the nearest gun store and buy one, no questions asked.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Sorry, I was talking to Americans.

Or if you are American - how is it that you don't know that marriage isn't a religious institution??? Only the ceremony is religious - the 'marriage' itself is a civil affair.

But, you avoid the question... you posit that liberals opposing guns are hypocrits, because they complained about losses of other 'liberties'...

I respond, HOW MANY of the gun-friendly individuals - who constantly use the protection of liberty as a reason to own guns - actively protect the 'liberties' of the gay marriage supporter?
QUOTE] what you are thinking of is Civil Union that is different from marriage Civil Union is the Government equivalent of marriage. However marriage is a religious thing if used by that term. I am an American I am for guns I am for Gay rights to a Civil Union with equal rights of a marriage but a CHURCH should not be forced to change its religion to accomodate some a group because that goes against the churches rights. also no one is avoiding the question except you, Gay marriage is irrelavent to guns stick to the topic.

Yes - it IS irrelevent - as was the comment it was in reference to.

Look back at the comment I responded to, that throws a liberal hipocrisy into the mix... because liberals 'support' one civil liberty, and 'oppose' another.

Then, perhaps, you will understand why my post was there...

You are wrong, anyway - a marriage is a union of two things or people... it is a word that has non-religious connotation, as well as religious ones... and that extends back into a linguistic root that greatly predates Christianity, or even Judaism.

Ah, things are beginning to make sense now. This country was based on personal responsibility, not a socialist government making all your decisions and controlling all your actions. Freedom is based on letting people soar or crash on their own. By their own efforts. The country you want is not the US.


The country was founded on a principle of freedom - but there were not 300 million people living in it. Things change - and the America of today is far removed from the America of yesteryear.

"Freedom" is based on being removed from arbitrary control - not necessarily from ALL control. You are confusing anarchy with freedom.


By forcing someone to use your standards. Don't you see that? You want to force someone else to do something they don't want to do. How free is that?


I don't want to force anyone to any standard. The Army requires that people have a sufficiently balanced psychology to be given weapons that kill. The government requires that you be 'road safe' before being given a license to drive a road-vehicle.

It seems sensible that private citizens should have to be competent to be allowed weapons. Do you think you would fail a basic psych test? Is that why you are so against the idea?


I don't seem to recall that in the Bill of Rights. There is no such entity, "Duty of Care". If you want to try to parent the nation, go ahead and try. You don't have any more qualifications to tell anyone else what to do or how to go about it. Why do you get to decide for me?


Duty of Care is a legal term - it is the obligation to protect... in the way that a parent has a legal requirement not to endanger their children... so the government has something of a social Duty of Care to it's citizens.


The Constitution only applies to citizens. Not visitors from other countries.


Really? So - foreigners arrested in America don't get a right to silence? They aren't allowed to worship? What about legal Resident non-citizens?

Were foreigners allowed to drink during Prohibition?


See, there's the difference. I'm not a threat. I'm only a potential threat. You are a threat right now, determined to take control of my life, by taking away tools I legally purchased. I call that theft.


First - I didn't say anything about making any legislation retroactive... so no-one said anything about taking your stuff away. Second - I haven't tried to control your life, I have merely stated that I think weapons owners should have to pass a basic psychological test... that is my opinion (not law), and need have no interaction with you - unless you went to purchase more weapons after the test was introduced...


Gun control is about CONTROL. It's right in there. America was based on the individual over society, that's why we're a federal republic, and not a democracy. It has always been about the individual. They aren't benefits. They're rights. The right to defend oneself. You want to limit how I can go about that. You want to control others.


I see - so you don't actually know what a republic is.

Oh - and back to the 'civil war' for a second... how was the Union invading the Confederacy about 'the individual'?


Oh, the government decides for us now? I don't think you know what country you're supposed to be in.


Which country AM I SUPPOSED to be in? Did I state my nationality?


I said Libertarian, not anarchist. Look 'em up. Government and virtue used in the same sentence....yikes. The government is FAR from qualified. Just because they were elected (only in SOME posts, by the way), doesn't mean they somehow are smarter or wiser than any other citizen. They just had more time and money on their hands to get elected.


You said libertarian - but you reject governmental control... there is a name for that.

Hey - you get the politicians you elect - that's what a republic is... you CHOOSE those people to represent you... so you 'qualify' them to make decisions for you.


Yup, and yet you see a tool that doesn't move on its own as a threat to you. I call that irrational.

No - as I said, I am not anti-gun. And, certainly not anti-gun when nobody is holding it.

If I was to be anti- anything here, it would be anti-gun-in-the-hands-of-dangerous-people... which would be why one might suggest a basic psychological text, to ensure that only competent, responsible people got armaments.

Do you have a reason why you think non-competent, non-responsible people should be armed?

Originally Posted by Macnasia

The only thing an AK-47 or an Uzi is good for is to kill people.

Cars are big, metal objects with big tires. They weigh thousands of pounds.
A puppy weighs 10 pounds. Max.

THE ONLY THING CARS ARE GOOD FOR IS KILLING SOFT, FURRY, INNOCENT PUPPIES!!

...we now return you to your regularly scheduled tirades.

No, you are quite correct. I'm talking about COMMON-SENSE RIGHTS, not Constitutional rights.


Actually, you're just talking about your opinion, not universal fact.


Not by me, it isn't! If you want an AK-47, I assume you want to hunt humans. That puts MY life in danger. I don't trust you, or your intentions, and it is just that simple.


If you're that paranoid, maybe you should seek counseling.


And when you buy a product that makes it easier for you to encroach upon MY property, and MY rights...it becomes MY FUCKING BUSINESS!


Not unless I actually use it to do so, it doesn't.


So you are perfectly okay with, say, a guy like John Hinckley just bopping into a gun store on one of his unsupervised home visits, and buying a gun?


He's already been proven guilty.....I'm talking about people who have no record. Nice try.


But aren't YOU trying to control others with your GUN?? I don't assume your intentions are benign, when you purchase an item that makes it easy for you to carry out malevolent intentions.


NO! I am not trying to control others with a firearm! I have it for defensive and target shooting purposes only! You're the one who is immediately assuming that I'm going to just run out and take what I want when I want. You don't do that with your shotgun, right? Same goes for me. The only way I'd ever use it on another human being would be if I were attacked and in fear for my life. Me having a firearm in no way interferes with your daily life, other than when you obsess about me owning one. And you're the only one that can control that.


Really, now? Is that why, two years ago, my dear friend, Terrianne, was shot in the head in her own front lawn, in Jacksonville, Florida...and, to this day, no one has been charged with the crime? Is that why no one is doing the airdance for killing my dear friend in cold blood...and just because she happened to lead an alternative lifestyle?


Ah....so THIS is where it comes from. It could have easily been a knife, hammer, or any other weapon. You need to stop blaming the device used in her murder. I'm sorry that an innocent died by the tool, but it's not the tool's fault. It's the intollerance and vile intent of the asshole that killed your friend. I would love to eliminate that kind of behavior, but restricting weapons doesn't do anything. All the large cities that have a majority of the murders by firearm already ban a great many of them, and it doesn't do anything to stem the tide--it just makes the victims more vulnerable.


Sure, that individual is "more important" when the individual in question is YOU. But not when it is ME. I completely understand yourtake here.


Your individual rights are just as important to me. I will never infringe upon your constitutionally supported rights. Owning a gun is not infringing upon your rights, like you seem to assume.


Again, I state, I DO NOT ASSUME YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...AND NEITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT!! That's a nice fairy tale. Doesn't happen that way in the real world, Utopian Libertarian gun nut.


Nice, and you try to convince me by calling me names? Brilliant debater you are not. The law, as written, is innocent until proven guilty. Just because you wish to ignore it doesn't mean it's not there, nor not right.


And how much damage can you do with that gun before we get a chance to take it away from you? How many have to die, or be permanently ruined, like Brady, before you are then not allowed to have the gun anymore? How about stopping you in the first place, so that all those innocent poeople don't have to suffer or die, just for YOUR rights? What about THEIR fucking rights?


Thousands of Americans have died for both your rights and mine. I would give my life to do the same. By your logic, you should be banned from ever speaking, due to the potential damage you could cause. That kind of thinking is absolutely insane in a free society.


Again, let me state, for the record, I AM NOT SCARED OF A CHUNK OF METAL. I AM SCARED OF YOU!!


I'm sorry you're frightened by a law-abiding citizen who has never attacked anybody. That's quite paranoid--again, maybe you should seek counseling.


Yeah, sure. And that is why Terrianne's murderer is still at large, and two years later, not even fucking IDENTIFIED!!


Maybe, had Terrianne a firearm, she could have defended herself. You seem to think the police have an obligation to protect us. The Supreme Court has ruled that they do not. Terrianne was never protected by the police. I am sorry that some murdering asshole is free in the world, but it's not the gun's fault. You keep throwing an emotion-laden argument in--you know there is no logical counter for that, right? You're giving me a brick wall to debate. You know, I don't think you want to debate--I think you just want to blame the tool, and let your pain and hate fester with it. SEEK COUNSELING.


First, you are comparing apples to oranges. A Catholic doesn't hurt anyone by being Catholic.


Crusades, anyone? Religion is notorious for causing wars.


A gay doesn't hurt anyone by being gay.


And neither does a firearm by being a firearm. A PERSON has to pull the trigger.


You, however, as a gun owner...you have the means by which to encroach upon MY rights, and MY property, and to take my life.


I have swords, too. I could do that without the gun. Or I could use my kitchen knife. You're stuck on one device.


And I have a right to know that you are not a crackpot, with intentions of blowing my head off with your precious fucking gun.


No, actually, you don't. That isn't a right.


See, it is people like YOU...with your attitude, that scare the fuck outta the people who want to ban guns. I'm not one of them. but I DO want to make sure only good, law-abiding citizens are acquiring guns through legal means. Can't do anything about those who acquire firearms illegally, but damn it all, at least that makes it harder for a crackpot or criminal to get a gun! At least he can't just bop into the nearest gun store and buy one, no questions asked.

Actually, anyone with any sort of criminal record will be refused by the Instant Check System currently in place. So, your theory doesn't hold any water. It doesn't do a damn thing to stop a criminal. Plus, you keep forgetting that I'd be a lot less lenient on a criminal than the current, faulty system in the US allows. If the criminal did indeed kill someone, kill them. Criminals today know they can get away with just about anything--there's the real problem.

People like me. You'd be surprised at how many people like me there are in the US. It's just that the media doesn't print any viewpoint other than the anti-gun side of things. It's not my fault that you are just stuck on your friend's murder, and haven't done any real research into the topic. Keep hating the guns and people like me that have done absolutely nothing to you.

And in case you missed it before, seek counseling for you paranoia and the trauma caused by your friend's death.

Cars are big, metal objects with big tires. They weigh thousands of pounds.
A puppy weighs 10 pounds. Max.

THE ONLY THING CARS ARE GOOD FOR IS KILLING SOFT, FURRY, INNOCENT PUPPIES!!

...we now return you to your regularly scheduled tirades.The idea that AK-47s (or any other assault rifles, SMGs, battle rifles, machine guns, etc) are only good for killing people is indeed quite silly. They are good for letting loose in a junkyard in the middle of nowhere and for putting holes in cardboard at a firing range, as well as killing animals and damaging non-living objects.

For letting loose or damaging non-living objects, these are indeed quite a lot better than semi-automatic weapons. For killing animals these are often worse than, for example, bolt action weapons, because of the inherent inaccuracy of most fully automatic weapon designs (and certainly of the AK-47 and nearly all machine guns).

Therefore, people who are for gun control should not be saying that "AKs are only good for killing people". They should be saying "AKs are only useful for a very, very limited amount of things, with killing people clearly in the top position on that short list." As opposed to cars, which have a slightly longer list, with the top position being clearly held by transporting people (or material, in case of some car designs), and Killing Puppies rating somewhere far below Driving Around Downtown Trying To Look Cool.

I don't want to force anyone to any standard. The Army requires that people have a sufficiently balanced psychology to be given weapons that kill. The government requires that you be 'road safe' before being given a license to drive a road-vehicle.

It seems sensible that private citizens should have to be competent to be allowed weapons. Do you think you would fail a basic psych test? Is that why you are so against the idea?


No, I'm against it because it's forcing me to do extraneous activities, spending money, and losing time to use a guaranteed right. That's my problem with it.


First - I didn't say anything about making any legislation retroactive... so no-one said anything about taking your stuff away. Second - I haven't tried to control your life, I have merely stated that I think weapons owners should have to pass a basic psychological test... that is my opinion (not law), and need have no interaction with you - unless you went to purchase more weapons after the test was introduced...


Ah, but if you had your way, it would interfere with my future. So it doesn't matter if you are talking retroactive or not--I do plan to purchase in the future.


Oh - and back to the 'civil war' for a second... how was the Union invading the Confederacy about 'the individual'?


It wasn't. Lincoln was the first of a slew of socialist presidents.


Which country AM I SUPPOSED to be in? Did I state my nationality?


Fine, if you're not an American, I apologize. If you are, you don't know how our government works.


You said libertarian - but you reject governmental control... there is a name for that.


I said I want most of government reduced. The original government of the US didn't control very much at all.


No - as I said, I am not anti-gun. And, certainly not anti-gun when nobody is holding it.


Yet you want controls for when the firearm is in a case. Interesting.


If I was to be anti- anything here, it would be anti-gun-in-the-hands-of-dangerous-people... which would be why one might suggest a basic psychological text, to ensure that only competent, responsible people got armaments.
[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]

And what would the qualifications for this subjective test be?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Do you have a reason why you think non-competent, non-responsible people should be armed?

I don't think they should be armed. My issue with gun control is it is mostly pre-emptive. It's rarely after someone has proved that they aren't responsible or competent. It's a first-strike.

if we were invaded i would go out and shoot the invaders and i know plenty of others that would but i guess thats just me and the ppl i know, and besides how is that the "wimps paradox" im simply stating the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. And we actual used it in the war of 1812...because of the 2nd ammendment we were more prepared to handle the brits.

Times have changed. In pre-modern times, weapons used by the army were the same as those carried by civilians for protection, with the exception of the cannon, which i believe blacksmiths could still make if needed. In modern times however i the army uses more advanced guns, grenades, armor, tanks, aircrafts, missiles, advanced cannons, better communication... In this context, civilians with guns would not stand a chance against an organised and prepared army that is prepared to use whatever it takes to eliminate the resistance (US military in Iraq for example at least tries to be cautious with bombing civilian targets and tries to minimise losses, or so i hope).

To nitpick, you're committing a crime as soon as you're preparing to drive off after having drunk those dozen tequilas (where I come from, just sitting in the driver's seat while drunk is, strictly speaking, a crime). For just driving through a red light and speeding off, the analogy works, sort of. It's a bit more difficult to kill the president, a hundred congressmen and several JCOSs, or to crack open nuclear power plants with speeding cars than with cruise missiles. And then there's the issue of what use is a cruise missile vs. a car.

Exactly. So you agree that the car is not illegal. The booze is not illegal. The objects themselves are not the problem. Therefore the aforementioned rocket launchers should be legal to own by a law abiding citizen, as he can drive or drink. The crime only occurs when the act is committed. Thanks.

Killing is killing, if it is with a car, a gun, or a phallic statuette ala “A Clockwork Orange”.

It is not a matter of use. If you apply that yardstick, we need to get rid of anything that is non-utilitarian. Goodbye buttons, hello, AMISH COUNTRY!



Just because something is your opinion doesn't disqualify it from being an extreme opinion. I don't have statistics from the US, but saying that even LAWs should be legal for civilians to own is absolutely considered extreme here. I imagine there are more members of either the "extreme right" or the "extreme left" than people who think heavy weaponry should be legal in the US.

Of course not. But do you really believe in your counter argument (using anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets), or are you just taking an extreme position to counter what I believe?

Let me put it another way: Guns are a consumer’s item like any other. I need a dog license. Fine. I need a special license to keep a lemur. Fine. I need no license for goldfish. Fine.
Now, make these replacements:
Goldfish = blackpowder, shotguns, BB guns, etc.
Dogs = semiautomatics (revolvers, Glock pistols, etc)
lemur = automatic/combat weapons (Uzi, FN or M-16 rifle, etc)
I have no problem with paying more/following the law to legally own what I want to. Otherwise, I’m just going to buy it illegally anyway.


So you are saying that SAMs should still be illegal for people to own? Because otherwise they can just go shopping for Stingers. With a unit replacement cost of $38,000, I doubt they'd be too expensive for anyone seriously contemplating shooting down passenger aircraft.

Nope. I’m just saying that it is not a good example for your argument. It’d be like me arguing guns vs. deaths caused by careless train driving, despite the fact that almost no one owns their own train.

A STINGER IS NOT A SAM.
This is a SAM: http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/2443d3aa10a4b1638525626e0049331c?OpenDocument
Please compare to the Stinger:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm


Spouting, indeed... I'm pretty sure I've mostly given arguments that are against what certain people, who happen to be anti-gun control (or pro-gun ownership, or whatever), have said.

Depends on perspective, no? I rarely read posts to other people. So in my experience, you’re pro-gun control (and also for the limitation of personal liberties).


Liquors at 80% or more proof are expensive. "Bathtup hooch" is not, and my understanding is that cottage industry alcoholic drinks are very rare around here. Liquor smuggled accross our Russian border is equally cheap, and its demand is not dependent on such a ban. The law did not, and could not, protect drunks living in poverty, since they are usually not dependent on legally bought alcohol anyway. It did work to reduce the amount of "accidental drunkenness" by making sure people legally buying alcohol have to drink a significant amount of the liquid before they drop. The illegal alcohol market was not affected by the law.

Moonshining is still a major problem in parts of the US, especially in rural Virginia and other areas.
Maybe we have a cultural divide here. Same way that condom machines and porn mags are not tolerated in public here in the US.


A population slightly smaller than that of Indiana living in a region slightly larger than Texas. Would such laws be easy to pass and enforce on a state level? What does "homogenous" population mean in that context (racial/ethnic/religious background?) and what does it have to do with the ease of enforcing laws?

Excuse me?
*Why* do all Europeans think that their country is larger than it really is?!?

Finland:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fi.html
land: 304,473 sq km - slightly smaller than Montana (Montana is 145,552 sq miles, or 678051 sq. km. Montana is 55% the size of Texas)
population: 5,214,512 (July 2004 est.)

Indiana has a population of: 6,195,643
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108211.html
Texas has a land area of: 261,797 sq. miles (= 678,051sq km)
http://www.texasalmanac.com/facts/

… So Finland has almost a million people less – or 84% of Indiana’s population with only 44% of Texas’s size!

Now, as to your quesiton on being homogenous:
Who lives in Finland?
Finn 93%, Swede 6%, Sami 0.11%, Roma 0.12%, Tatar 0.02% (basically, 99% white)
Evangelical Lutheran 89%, Russian Orthodox 1%, none 9%, other 1% (basically, 90% Christian, all most all of it Lutheran)
Finnish 93.4% (official), Swedish 5.9% (official), small Sami- and Russian-speaking minorities (basically, 99% Scandinavian)

America is made up of immigrants. EVERYONE has a different point of view/cross to bear/ whatever.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

white 77.1%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1.5%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.3%, other 4% (2000)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)

Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

…and these people live across 50 states (in greater or lesser numbers). For example, more Jews tend to live in New York than Arkansas. Mormons gravitate around Utah. But all can be found everywhere. Never mind the languages spoken. In my town alone, we have polylingual education, as we have sizable minorities of Russian, Polish, Vietnamese, and various South Americans/Caribbeans.

So, no, it would be unlikely to help doing it on a state level, as though states do have a “vibe” to them, they are not little nations. In my life I’ve been from Connecticut and Virginia, but I'm an American first.

The main point: Finns are similar, homogenous people. By and large, you speak the same language, look the same, and worship the same. (Please do not consider that an insult, it is just how your country is made up.) However, BECAUSE you’re all pretty similar, it is easier for you to pass laws and come to a consensus.
Imagine any law you like. Now imagine how the wording would be different if you had to come to a consensus with the Italians, the Russians, and the British. :)


Going back to firearms from that analogy, banning machineguns would be bad (because that's banning a technology), but banning machineguns with a cyclic RoF over 1000rpm might not be if there's a reason to do so (because that's merely grading it)? I'd say engine power output limits for cars, or alcohol proof levels, etc, are more equivalents of cyclic RoF or caliber in guns than of pressure tolerance, for example.

If that particular gun is Unsafe to fire at 1000rpm, yes. But not that MAKE of gun, just that one. Same as with cars – if my cousin’s Skoda fails the safety check, it is off the road. But Slovakia isn’t going to pull all the 2001 Skodas off because of it.


It would be more logical (not neccessarily what I'd want to do, but more logical) for me to draw the line with definitions such as "fully automatic" or "semi-automatic" or similar, not by RoF, bullet weight, muzzle energy or any other such "grading" factor. It would make more sense to differentiate by law between clearly separate stages of technology than between two very similar items on either side of an arbitrary line. Going back to cars, it's as though there was a separate technology that would be required to get the car to move faster than 180km/h, but which has very limited use other than that (might increase acceleration in some circumstances, for example). I'm sure you'd then see people who'd want to restrict civilian access to cars using that technology, and there would be a logical basis for those arguments.

And I’m against limiting technology, thoughts, books, good consumption, ideas, etc.


It's the given name of the particular type of weapon. It is distuingished, as clearly as guns can be, from SMGs, light machine guns and battle rifles (or automatic rifles). It is used as the official term for such weapons in most modern armies and by nearly all firearms manufacturers. In the few cases it's not used, this is because of PR. I can't think of any other reason why the XM8 project changed from Lightweight Assault Rifle to Battle Rifle -- especially since this weapon is obviously a lightweight assault rifle and obviously not a battle rifle.
If you really have a problem with that term, you need to get yourself a time machine and kill whoever it is (possibly quite a number of people) that thought to call the modified MP43 the Sturmgewehr 44.

I was talking about in US law, where the term is discussed but is very, very poorly defined. Yes, I agree that there are differences between a Mauser 98 and an AK-47. I just don’t think that they need to be treated differently as they are the same consumer good.


I get the feeling from this that an argument counts as a "technological argument" only when you do not agree with it? Ie making tracked vehicles illegal to drive on roads is not a "technological argument" because you agree that they tear up a road and are thus a problem, while making assault rifles illegal is a "technological argument" because you do not see any reason to make them illegal?

?? I don’t understand your logic here. If the tracked vehicles do not harm the roads (which are a common asset of the people), they should be allowed. By the same token, if the assault rifle or car is UNSAFE to operate, it should not be allowed on the street. However, if the assault rifle or car or tracked vehicle is doing no harm, it is fine.

Tracks vs. tires is not a technology argument – they are two ways of doing the same thing, as a revolver or automatic pistol are. Or a square shovel vs. a rounded one.

Now, if you had some new method of transport (say, an anti-gravity system, or maybe metal tires), and wanted THOSE banned, even though they do no damage to the street, THAT is a technological argument.


Licensing is not neccessarily the same as "careful screening", which is why I asked. There is no extensive background check or psychological screening when you get a driver's license. Not to mention that such screening would theoretically be easier for a government to pervert into restricting Joe Average's access to firearms.
It’s as good as it gets.
Why should there be a psychological screening? Unless you’re already committed as inept/insane, you’ve committed no foul.

Not here, at least since the states dole out the driver’s licenses. Again, I’m running on the assumption (which Zaxon sometimes chides me for) that I assume that the state is not in the business of trying to oppress the people.


Not being sold those items, or indeed them not existing in any market they have access to, does stop them.
Right. And there are no illegal drugs on the streets, either.


I trust the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies are keeping better track of large bombs being manufactured in the US than of car tuning.
But do you trust US Intel & Law enforcement to do a better job patrolling a nation the US’s size vs. a town’s police force to patrol the town? Either way, it’s a question of diligence.
In both cases, the LEGAL ones (the street legal car or gun) don’t NEED to be tracked. The citizen is held responsible to use his wares legally. If a stinger missile gets shot at a car on the DC Beltway, you better bet the feds will start with the folks who have them to make sure they still do.


Again, I did not say I want to ban grenade launchers. Any reference to them being illegal spawn from the fact that 40mm grenade launchers are, AFAIK, illegal for civilians to own in the US currently.
Trucks kill, absolutely, by the same definitions as bullets kill. Fertilizer, not quite. To make fertilizer an explosive at all, it needs to be treated (with diesel oil), which means you currently need to commit a crime with the fertilizer before it is even capable of becoming a weapon -- thus no need to ban it.
And yes, you could say silly things like firing smoke from grenade launchers at a concert makes grenade launchers as useful as cars. Similarly, you could say ATGMs are very useful for cutting down trees, demolishing big rocks, etc. Expect to be laughed at though -- good thing you included the smiley.[/QUOTE]

…all of which, however, illustrates my point that ownership of the objects are not the problem, the people using them for bad purposes are. Enforce the LAW, do not take RIGHTS from the people.

Any bibles, torahs or korans used to bludgeon people to death you absolutely should take away. ;)
But… that’s all they’re used for!

OK, I'll take those questions one at a time.

First, gun nuts ATTITUDE about it says that they feel their rights supercede everyone else's. sorry, but I have a right to be safe FROM YOU. I don't know what your intentions are with your gun.

Second, I'm not into semantics when talking about guns, really. I don't know a lot about them, because I am not a gun nut, an NRA member, or an aficienado. I just have one for home defense. I live in the kind of neighborhood that makes it prudent to have one for home defense.

In fact, the main reason I chose the particular gun I did is because you don't particularly have to be a good shot with it. The spread gets the bad guy. I've never had to use it, yet, except for the times I go out to the range to keep in practice, so that, God forbid, the time comes where I am forced to use it, I will be able to do so.

Third, no, you don't need a reason to exercise your constitutional rights...but remember that I, and others, also have Constitutional rights. you talk constantly about YOUR rights, YOUR rights, YOUR rights...but never about anyone else's rights...or YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. I have a right to be safe FROM YOU. And since I do not know your intentions, the knowledge that, in order to acquire the gun, you had to go through a background check...well, that makes it just a little easier for me to sleep at night, I don't have to worry quite as much about you. and, again, if your intentions are benign, and you have nothing to hide, why should you object to a background check?

Fourth, no, that is just the point. We are no longer innocent until proven guilty in this country. That's a nice little fairy tale. Fact is, you are presumed to be guilty, and then the government has to PROVE you are guilty. But the government already assumes you are guilty. Hey, look at Scott Petersen, for example. Did YOU believe he was innocent until proven guilty? Or did you just jump on the "he's guilty" bandwagon like so many others did? And if you are a law-abiding citizen, then why do you have a problem with being required to PROVE that, before you are allowed to purchase an item that makes it really easy for you to break the law?

Fifth, again, I'm not into the semantics. I'd rather that I didn't need to own my shotgun at all. The fact is I live in a rather rough neighborhood that makes owning such a weapon for home defense a good idea. Unfortunately, I'm not rich enough to live in one of those nice little gated communities where crime is zero.

Sixth...why do you seem to have such a problem with PROVING you are a law abiding, responsible person, if, in fact, you are, as you claim?

Seventh, I don't have a problem with gov't telling us what we can and cannot own, when the product in question is one which can be used to illegally deprive someone else of their rights to life, liberty, or property.

And, just as a final shot...ever hear of The Patriot Act? None of us are "innocent until proven guilty" anymore. Haven't you heard?

1. I'm a Law abiding citizen, have never committed a crime and am a member of the military. How am I a threat to you? Your atittude seems much more hostile than mine. Perhaps they should take your gun away.

2. You don't know alot about guns but want them banned anyway. How does an education or being informed on a subject make one a "gun nut"?
You admit that you're not very good w/ a gun but own one anyway. Hope your kids don't get in the way.

3. I'm talking about my rights and the rights of all Americans. You're talking about your "feeling safe". You use that word alot as well. Show me where you have a right to "feel safe". Since I am a law abiding citizen, that shows that I am responsible. I don't know your intentions w/ a computer. Perhaps you will try and hack mine. Do you feel you should have to justify the ownership of it? Should you justify writing to your local paper? (1st amend. )

4. Hmm, last time I checked, the papers weren't the court system. Since I am a LAC, I shouldn't have to PROVE anything to anybody. Niether should you or anybody else.

5. I don't live in a gated community either. I own guns for defense, fun, and historical collections.

6. My record as a LAC is my PROOF. I don't feel the need to prove anything further.

7. I do have a problem w/ the gov't telling us what we can own because virtually anything can be used to justify bannings, restrictions or burnings.

So you're oppose the Patriot Act restricting rights but want to further restrict rights by taking away guns? Do you not see why the Founding Fathers encouraged gun ownership?

You keep saying you're not into semantics but continue pointing out that I use the word "my" in the arguements. You do realize that when I say that, as an American Citizen, I'm reffering to the rights of all citizens, right?

Exactly. So you agree that the car is not illegal. The booze is not illegal. The objects themselves are not the problem. [...] The crime only occurs when the act is committed. Thanks.In the case of cars, absolutely. If cruise missiles were legal to own, then it would be true about them as well. This goes back to what I said earlier in the thread: "I believe the argument is that some items are so dangerous when used, and there is no practical way to stop them from being used, that banning them and thus "limiting personal freedoms" is preferable [to some people] to taking the risk of them being used in an exceptionally illegal manner."

Of course not. But do you really believe in your counter argument (using anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets), or are you just taking an extreme position to counter what I believe?If you actually believe that anti-tank, anti-aircraft and cruise missiles should be legal to own, then I believe my argument was completely justified. If this was a thread about the legal status of drugs and you said you believed all drugs should be legal for recreational use, people wouldn't comment much on legalizing marijuana -- they'd use examples with heroin and other, more addictive, more harmful drugs, just like I'm using examples of the more destructive weapons.

Let me put it another way: Guns are a consumer’s item like any other.I do not refute this. They are indeed a basic consumer good, items like many others. It's just a question of grading, refer above for my quote of myself.

A STINGER IS NOT A SAM.From the site you linked: "The Stinger is a man-portable, shoulder-fired guided missile system which enables the Marine to effectively engage low-altitude jet, propeller-driven and helicopter aircraft." It is a missile that goes from surface to air, a Surface to Air Missile. You might as well claim an M249 is not a machinegun and link a website about the M2HB instead.

Mil domains refuse most connection attempts from abroad, but I can only assume the website you linked was about the HAWK or Patriot missile systems. Here (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/javelin.htm) are (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mistral.htm) a (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm) few (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-14.htm) other (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-16.htm) SAMs (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-18.htm) which wouldn't be too expensive.

Depends on perspective, no? I rarely read posts to other people. So in my experience, you’re pro-gun control (and also for the limitation of personal liberties).Yes, depends on the perspective. I'm also a commiepinkochinesenazihippiefascistkiller in some people's experience.

Maybe we have a cultural divide here. Same way that condom machines and porn mags are not tolerated in public here in the US.We absolutely do have a cultural divide. This is the main reason why I try hard not to share my opinions on how the US legal system should work. It's not my legal system, I don't know it very well, I do not understand its subject population. All I can offer is some international perspective to the culture-specific discussion, and a few facts to the rest.

*Why* do all Europeans think that their country is larger than it really is?!?Because I read the US Census data table on State on County size from 1990 wrong. I have no idea how I managed to fuck that up. Yeah, you've got the numbers right in your post. I think maybe I looked at the numbers for Arizona (barely below 300,000km^2) and somehow confused it with Texas? I consider 84% to be "slightly lower", so the population bit stands.

The main point: Finns are similar, homogenous people. By and large, you speak the same language, look the same, and worship the same. (Please do not consider that an insult, it is just how your country is made up.) However, BECAUSE you’re all pretty similar, it is easier for you to pass laws and come to a consensus.In that respect, yes, it's easier to pass a law here, easier to find a consensus on some matters -- on the other hand, it's practically impossible to try some other things in politics because of the same thing. I don't think the size of the population or the area the law affects or the number/size of racial/ethnic/religious groups has much bearing on the actual effects of banning/not banning firearms, however. If some of those ethnic or religious groups, or cross-minority culture in general, have a tendency for certain behavior concerning firearms, then that does affect how well the laws will work.

I was talking about in US law, where the term is discussed but is very, very poorly defined.That's a problem with US law then. The term "assault rifle" is very well defined in other usage.

Yes, I agree that there are differences between a Mauser 98 and an AK-47. I just don’t think that they need to be treated differently as they are the same consumer good.They are similar, but they most certainly are not the same consumer good. And really it's a moot point if you accept that "unsafe" items can be banned, no matter which group they belong to. There are obvious differences between a Mauser Gewehr 98 and an AK-47, you simply do not agree with people who think those differences are significant enough to base laws on.

Tracks vs. tires is not a technology argument – they are two ways of doing the same thing, as a revolver or automatic pistol are. Or a square shovel vs. a rounded one.[Emphasis mine]Now you've done it. If arguing for laws that differentiate between revolvers and automatic pistols is not a "technology argument", then neither does arguing for laws differentiating between semi-automatic vs fully automatic rifles have to be. The technological difference between the latter two is much smaller than that between the former, and they are still just two ways of doing the same thing.

As for the tracked vehicle example, it again goes back to my quote at the beginning of this post. It is as much a technological argument as differentiating between automatic and non-automatic weaponry, it is just enforced in different ways at different levels.

Why should there be a psychological screening? Unless you’re already committed as inept/insane, you’ve committed no foul.It could be the potential buyer would be considered incapable to understand the effects of his actions. He might even fill the requirements of being clinically insane, but he just hasn't been psychologically "tested" ever. I'm sure some would argue it would be better not to allow such people to own weapons, because of much the same reasons why it's unlikely kids under 10 years of age will be allowed legal ownership of firearms, regardless of whether they can pass handling and theoretical exams.

Not here, at least since the states dole out the driver’s licenses. Again, I’m running on the assumption (which Zaxon sometimes chides me for) that I assume that the state is not in the business of trying to oppress the people.

Right. And there are no illegal drugs on the streets, either.The item discussed was a cruise missile. Last I checked, those weren't being sold at street corners. The same goes for shoulder-fired SAMs and ATGMs in most of the civilized world. It is theoretically possible to get your hands on them, but it's extremely difficult, and you are very likely to get caught doing it. That sort of thing does slightly hamper the plans of terrorists (or just plain madmen).

If a stinger missile gets shot at a car on the DC Beltway, you better bet the feds will start with the folks who have them to make sure they still do.I'm sure nobody would waste a perfectly good Stinger at a car... In any case, this is why I used terrorists (who don't have much fear of what happens afterwards) as an example. The other aspect is that it would likely become much easier to illegally acquire such weapons if they were legalized, and thus criminal use of them would increase.

…all of which, however, illustrates my point that ownership of the objects are not the problem, the people using them for bad purposes are. Enforce the LAW, do not take RIGHTS from the people.And, again, it goes back to where, if anywhere, you draw the line I discuss in the quote at the top of this post. This is truly arbitrary. No simple, foolproof reasoning can be given for that choice. It is much like the discussions on whether it's morally justifiable to sacrifice one to save 2, 100, a million, any number.

And in case you missed it before, seek counseling for you paranoia and the trauma caused by your friend's death.

And so we get to the crux of the matter. He's admitted he doesn't know much about guns but has an emotional trauma in his life that he hasn't worked out yet. A classic case of displaced aggression. Perhaps he should join a communtiy watch or victims rights program. He might even feel better if he moved into a neighborhood of "gun nuts".

And so we get to the crux of the matter. He's admitted he doesn't know much about guns but has an emotional trauma in his life that he hasn't worked out yet. A classic case of displaced aggression. Perhaps he should join a communtiy watch or victims rights program. He might even feel better if he moved into a neighborhood of "gun nuts".

I'd be the first to volunteer to give a training session at the range.

Just FYI, a Stinger is a heat seeker. Its tolerances wouldn't let it lock onto a car. It would have to be more of a fire from the hip kind of thing.

3 yrs ADA as a Stinger crewman.

What if, instead of banning guns, the government sharply raises the prices on bullets? As opposed to guns, don't bullets technically kill people?

There was a proposal in The People's Republic of California to put a $.10 per round tax on ammunition, but it failed. That would've more than doubled the price of smaller caliber ammo.

Just FYI, a Stinger is a heat seeker. Its tolerances wouldn't let it lock onto a car. It would have to be more of a fire from the hip kind of thing.I expected as much. Not having hands-on experience with any real guided missile systems, I did not care to make a guess as to whether it would even fire without a lock. I suppose it would be hellishly inaccurate when fired like that, because of the two-stage rocket.

If you're looking for true deterrent effect--not the tough guy ability to pull a gun and be a hero--then wear it in the open and the criminals are more likely to leave you and those who are with you alone.

Actually, open-carry is much more risky. It makes people uncomfortable and intimidates some, whether you mean to or not. I've carried openly and have had people taunt me in an apparent attempt to get me to shoot them. These guys were probably drunk. I suppose they probably weren't actually trying to get shot, but it's always a possiblity.

When you're concealed, you lose the deterrent effect, but you make it much harder for criminals to identify threats. You can always try and look like someone who carries concealed with you clothing and body language.

There was a proposal in The People's Republic of California to put a $.10 per round tax on ammunition, but it failed. That would've more than doubled the price of smaller caliber ammo.
Something about selective taxing irks me. "Let's tax cigerettes until nobody smokes anymore!" Yeah, and now people buy cigerettes illegally over the internet because of the rediculously high taxes. Funny that a black market has opened for something as benign as cigerettes.

Every day I worry I'm turning into a libertarian, than I think of poor people and return to pseudo-liberalism. :p

Actually, open-carry is much more risky. It makes people uncomfortable and intimidates some, whether you mean to or not. I've carried openly and have had people taunt me in an apparent attempt to get me to shoot them. These guys were probably drunk. I suppose they probably weren't actually trying to get shot, but it's always a possiblity.
Well if it will nominate them for a Darwin award, why not oblige?

You keep on saying that the right to your life and safety is not given. Now check out THIS!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Also:
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.
Baddbing- BADABOOM! Join the militia and you get a gun. One that is required for "a well regulated Militia", not a sawed-off shotgun or AK-47. The AK is unaccurate, and as such not needed, unless you want to wound large amounts of people instead of just pegging them on the head with a carabine.

There was a proposal in The People's Republic of California to put a $.10 per round tax on ammunition, but it failed. That would've more than doubled the price of smaller caliber ammo.
There wouldn't be a point to that anyway seeing as criminals don't actually use that much ammo. It would only penalize people who do a lot of target shooting.

Baddbing- BADABOOM! Join the militia and you get a gun.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

-----

Shooting down the same arguments over and over again can get tiring. What would you guys think of a facts thread? No opinions, just facts related to these debates, regardless of which side they would seem to support when posted on their own.

Facts would include:
A clip is not a magazine. Here is the difference...
The AWB specifically did NOT ban machine guns. Here's what it did ban...
Millions of Americans are in the militia, whether or not they know it. Here's what the militia is...
Most violent crime in the USA is not committed with a firearm. Here are the statistics...

Judging by those laws, National Guard duty is optional. As such, only people who sign up should be able to have guns, since they are the only ones in the militia.

Judging by those laws, National Guard duty is optionalCorrect.
As such, only people who sign up should be able to have guns, since they are the only ones in the militia.I read TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 as saying female citizens who are members of the NG are in the militia, but so are a lot of (most?) men. Can a non-citizen male join the National Guard?

You keep on saying that the right to your life and safety is not given. Now check out THIS!


Yup, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where is safety mentioned? And what degree of safety? All I know is that the constitution says we get to defend ourselves--that's listed in amendment number two.


Baddbing- BADABOOM! Join the militia and you get a gun. One that is required for "a well regulated Militia", not a sawed-off shotgun or AK-47. The AK is unaccurate, and as such not needed, unless you want to wound large amounts of people instead of just pegging them on the head with a carabine.

Sorry, Gnomish, but because that one little comma right before, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't mean you have to be in the militia--it just happens that an armed society will facilitate a militia quite easily. Nice try. You're believing too much falsified anti-gun rhetoric.

1. I'm a Law abiding citizen, have never committed a crime and am a member of the military. How am I a threat to you? Your atittude seems much more hostile than mine. Perhaps they should take your gun away.

2. You don't know alot about guns but want them banned anyway. How does an education or being informed on a subject make one a "gun nut"?
You admit that you're not very good w/ a gun but own one anyway. Hope your kids don't get in the way.

3. I'm talking about my rights and the rights of all Americans. You're talking about your "feeling safe". You use that word alot as well. Show me where you have a right to "feel safe". Since I am a law abiding citizen, that shows that I am responsible. I don't know your intentions w/ a computer. Perhaps you will try and hack mine. Do you feel you should have to justify the ownership of it? Should you justify writing to your local paper? (1st amend. )

4. Hmm, last time I checked, the papers weren't the court system. Since I am a LAC, I shouldn't have to PROVE anything to anybody. Niether should you or anybody else.

5. I don't live in a gated community either. I own guns for defense, fun, and historical collections.

6. My record as a LAC is my PROOF. I don't feel the need to prove anything further.

7. I do have a problem w/ the gov't telling us what we can own because virtually anything can be used to justify bannings, restrictions or burnings.

So you're oppose the Patriot Act restricting rights but want to further restrict rights by taking away guns? Do you not see why the Founding Fathers encouraged gun ownership?

You keep saying you're not into semantics but continue pointing out that I use the word "my" in the arguements. You do realize that when I say that, as an American Citizen, I'm reffering to the rights of all citizens, right?

1. I have ONLY YOUR WORD that you are a law-abiding citizen. Not saying you aren't, but, sorry, if you want something that makes it easier for you to break the law, if you so chose...then your WORD ALONE is not good enough for me. I still don't see what your problem with a background check is. Anyone that obsessed with AVOIDING a background check probably DOES have something to hide.

2. I have no kids. I am single, and live alone. I plan on being single for life. i've no desire, whatsoever, to share my life with any other human being in that capacity. I enjoy my freedom too much for that. And since I'm sterile, I can never have kids anyway. It's just me and my dog here, and I don't really need or want anyone else. At least not romantically...or living with me. So I'm a loner. i like it better that way. I'm free to come and go as I please, and I answer to no-one for anything.

3. You are again comparing apples to oranges. I can't blow your fucking head off with a computer, or a letter to the editor of the newspaper. you sure as hell CAN blow my fucking head off with a gun.

4. Again, if you really are a law-abiding citizen (LAC) then you should have no problem proving it, before you are allowed to acquire an item that makes it easier for you to commit crime.

5. I have mine strictly for defense. Fact is, I don't even like having to own it. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to protect myself if some crazy yahoo busts into my place. Damned if I'm gonna wait for the fucking cops to wipe the powdered sugar and chocolate frosting off their fingers before they come to help me. fuck that. God helps them who help themselves, and, though I do not like the gun, and hope I never have to use it, you better believe if I'm put into a situation where I am forced to use it, to protect my life, my safety, and my property, bet your ass I'll have no compunction whatsoever about using it.

6. Too bad that you don't feel the need to prove anything else. The government does feel you need to prove it...and I support that stance. I, too, feel your word is not good enough. any asshole criminal could SAY they are a LAC, but are they? One way to know for sure...BACKGROUND CHECKS!!

7. No, you are not referring to MY rights. Until I know different, I assume your intentions, on buying a gun, are hostile. Bet your ass MY intentions are hostile with my gun. I intend to blow away any asshole that threatens my life, safety or property. the gun is never leaving my place of residence...I am not going out to hunt people with the gun, but bet your ass my intentions with the gun ARE hostile! Any asshole breaks into my place, they are gonna get blown away.

I live in Texas. We have the "Make My Day" law here in Texas. and that means, once you are on my property, and you are threatening my property, life, or safety, I have the right to pump your ass fulla fuckin buckshot! And believe you me, that is my intention with my gun. I just hope to God I never HAVE to.

And so we get to the crux of the matter. He's admitted he doesn't know much about guns but has an emotional trauma in his life that he hasn't worked out yet. A classic case of displaced aggression. Perhaps he should join a communtiy watch or victims rights program. He might even feel better if he moved into a neighborhood of "gun nuts".

First of all, I am a SHE. Secondly, no amount of counseling is gonna bring back Terrianne, and no amount of counseling is going to bring the asswipe who took her out to justice.

But her death coulda been PREVENTED...if the asswipe hadn't been able to GET a gun, he wouldn't have been ABLE to blow her fucking head off.

QED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
And when you buy a product that makes it easier for you to encroach upon MY property, and MY rights...it becomes MY FUCKING BUSINESS!

Reply:
Not unless I actually use it to do so, it doesn't.

Oh, so you get to blow my fucking head off FIRST...is that how it works? what ever happened to PREVENTING FUCKING CRIME??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
But aren't YOU trying to control others with your GUN?? I don't assume your intentions are benign, when you purchase an item that makes it easy for you to carry out malevolent intentions.

Reply:
NO! I am not trying to control others with a firearm! I have it for defensive and target shooting purposes only! You're the one who is immediately assuming that I'm going to just run out and take what I want when I want.

Yes. I AM assuming that, because you are so strenuously oppsed to a simple fucking background check. This makes me wonder what, exactly, is it that you have to hide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Really, now? Is that why, two years ago, my dear friend, Terrianne, was shot in the head in her own front lawn, in Jacksonville, Florida...and, to this day, no one has been charged with the crime? Is that why no one is doing the airdance for killing my dear friend in cold blood...and just because she happened to lead an alternative lifestyle?

Reply:
Ah....so THIS is where it comes from. It could have easily been a knife, hammer, or any other weapon.

You're right. Coulda been. But if it WAS, the assailant woulda had to get close enough where my dear friend woulda at least had a chance to FIGHT BACK! No, instead some asswiope coward popped her in the head with a gun, and took off. Couldn't do it that easy with a knife, or a hammer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Sure, that individual is "more important" when the individual in question is YOU. But not when it is ME. I completely understand yourtake here.

Reply:
Your individual rights are just as important to me. I will never infringe upon your constitutionally supported rights. Owning a gun is not infringing upon your rights, like you seem to assume.

I don't assume that. I DO, however, recognize that you owning a gun makes it that much easier for you to infringe on my rights. Which is why I insist you be subject to a background check before being allowed to purchase a gun. Again, I have to ask: If your intentions are truly benign, then why are you so opposed to a background check?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Again, let me state, for the record, I AM NOT SCARED OF A CHUNK OF METAL. I AM SCARED OF YOU!!

Reply:
I'm sorry you're frightened by a law-abiding citizen who has never attacked anybody. That's quite paranoid--again, maybe you should seek counseling.

No, not paranoid. I do not know you, or what your intentions may be in owning a gun. I recognize the gun makes it much easier for you to infringe on MY rights, and thus, I insist on the background check, to insure that there is at least no obvious indicator that you MAY be planning on using your gun to deprive me of my rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
Yeah, sure. And that is why Terrianne's murderer is still at large, and two years later, not even fucking IDENTIFIED!!

Reply:
Maybe, had Terrianne a firearm, she could have defended herself.

Maybe if the asswipe who popped her didn't have a gun, she wouldn't have HAD to defend herself!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
A gay doesn't hurt anyone by being gay.


Reply:
And neither does a firearm by being a firearm. A PERSON has to pull the trigger.

And I'm not asking that the GUN be subjected to the background check. I'm asking that the PERSON who wants to own the gun be subject to a background check.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
You, however, as a gun owner...you have the means by which to encroach upon MY rights, and MY property, and to take my life.

Reply:
I have swords, too. I could do that without the gun. Or I could use my kitchen knife. You're stuck on one device.

At least with those other weapons, you gotta get close enough to me where I have a fighting chance to defend myself.

1. I have ONLY YOUR WORD that you are a law-abiding citizen. Not saying you aren't, but, sorry, if you want something that makes it easier for you to break the law, if you so chose...then your WORD ALONE is not good enough for me. I still don't see what your problem with a background check is. Anyone that obsessed with AVOIDING a background check probably DOES have something to hide.

2. I have no kids. I am single, and live alone. I plan on being single for life. i've no desire, whatsoever, to share my life with any other human being in that capacity. I enjoy my freedom too much for that. And since I'm sterile, I can never have kids anyway. It's just me and my dog here, and I don't really need or want anyone else. At least not romantically...or living with me. So I'm a loner. i like it better that way. I'm free to come and go as I please, and I answer to no-one for anything.

3. You are again comparing apples to oranges. I can't blow your fucking head off with a computer, or a letter to the editor of the newspaper. you sure as hell CAN blow my fucking head off with a gun.

4. Again, if you really are a law-abiding citizen (LAC) then you should have no problem proving it, before you are allowed to acquire an item that makes it easier for you to commit crime.

5. I have mine strictly for defense. Fact is, I don't even like having to own it. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to protect myself if some crazy yahoo busts into my place. Damned if I'm gonna wait for the fucking cops to wipe the powdered sugar and chocolate frosting off their fingers before they come to help me. fuck that. God helps them who help themselves, and, though I do not like the gun, and hope I never have to use it, you better believe if I'm put into a situation where I am forced to use it, to protect my life, my safety, and my property, bet your ass I'll have no compunction whatsoever about using it.

6. Too bad that you don't feel the need to prove anything else. The government does feel you need to prove it...and I support that stance. I, too, feel your word is not good enough. any asshole criminal could SAY they are a LAC, but are they? One way to know for sure...BACKGROUND CHECKS!!

7. No, you are not referring to MY rights. Until I know different, I assume your intentions, on buying a gun, are hostile. Bet your ass MY intentions are hostile with my gun. I intend to blow away any asshole that threatens my life, safety or property. the gun is never leaving my place of residence...I am not going out to hunt people with the gun, but bet your ass my intentions with the gun ARE hostile! Any asshole breaks into my place, they are gonna get blown away.

I live in Texas. We have the "Make My Day" law here in Texas. and that means, once you are on my property, and you are threatening my property, life, or safety, I have the right to pump your ass fulla fuckin buckshot! And believe you me, that is my intention with my gun. I just hope to God I never HAVE to.


Now I get it. You think everyone else with a gun thinks like you do, expecting to shoot someone.

God, you are really screwed up in the head, kid. I wouldn't want someone like you owning a firearm, either. But, since you aparently don't have a criminal record and have a legally purchased firearm (it IS legal isn't it?), I can't really tell stop you from owning one....ah well, that's how freedom works. I guess I'll just have to cope with a maniac with a gun. See how easy it is?

1. I have ONLY YOUR WORD that you are a law-abiding citizen. Not saying you aren't, but, sorry, if you want something that makes it easier for you to break the law, if you so chose...then your WORD ALONE is not good enough for me. I still don't see what your problem with a background check is. Anyone that obsessed with AVOIDING a background check probably DOES have something to hide.

2. I have no kids. I am single, and live alone. I plan on being single for life. i've no desire, whatsoever, to share my life with any other human being in that capacity. I enjoy my freedom too much for that. And since I'm sterile, I can never have kids anyway. It's just me and my dog here, and I don't really need or want anyone else. At least not romantically...or living with me. So I'm a loner. i like it better that way. I'm free to come and go as I please, and I answer to no-one for anything.

3. You are again comparing apples to oranges. I can't blow your fucking head off with a computer, or a letter to the editor of the newspaper. you sure as hell CAN blow my fucking head off with a gun.

4. Again, if you really are a law-abiding citizen (LAC) then you should have no problem proving it, before you are allowed to acquire an item that makes it easier for you to commit crime.

5. I have mine strictly for defense. Fact is, I don't even like having to own it. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to protect myself if some crazy yahoo busts into my place. Damned if I'm gonna wait for the fucking cops to wipe the powdered sugar and chocolate frosting off their fingers before they come to help me. fuck that. God helps them who help themselves, and, though I do not like the gun, and hope I never have to use it, you better believe if I'm put into a situation where I am forced to use it, to protect my life, my safety, and my property, bet your ass I'll have no compunction whatsoever about using it.

6. Too bad that you don't feel the need to prove anything else. The government does feel you need to prove it...and I support that stance. I, too, feel your word is not good enough. any asshole criminal could SAY they are a LAC, but are they? One way to know for sure...BACKGROUND CHECKS!!

7. No, you are not referring to MY rights. Until I know different, I assume your intentions, on buying a gun, are hostile. Bet your ass MY intentions are hostile with my gun. I intend to blow away any asshole that threatens my life, safety or property. the gun is never leaving my place of residence...I am not going out to hunt people with the gun, but bet your ass my intentions with the gun ARE hostile! Any asshole breaks into my place, they are gonna get blown away.

I live in Texas. We have the "Make My Day" law here in Texas. and that means, once you are on my property, and you are threatening my property, life, or safety, I have the right to pump your ass fulla fuckin buckshot! And believe you me, that is my intention with my gun. I just hope to God I never HAVE to.


1. The old "if you don't have something to hide" arguement. They used that in England too. Would you support cameras pointing into your home? If you don't have anything to hide....

2. Fine, hope your dog doesn't get in the way. You still didn't answer my question.

3. The pen is mightier than the sword. A right is a right and they're both fruit.

4. Once again, as a LAC, I HAVE proven it. If I commit a crime then I'm no longer a LAC and have my rights restricted.

5. So you feel the police are incompetant officials and yet you want to give the Gov't, an even larger and openly incompentent organization, authority to determine how you should defend yourself? The scum that shot your friend most likely didn't legally own the gun in the first place. How will inhibiting the ownership of firearms to LAC(which is what BGC are really for) keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?

6. See #5

7. You have stated previously what you feel your rights are. They exist nowhere except in your imagination.

You have already admitted that your intentions are hostile. By your definition, you should have your gun taken away as you "may" hurt someone inadvertantly w/ it.

I don't care if you are a he, she, or an it. You have a severe emotional trauma in your background that you need serious counseling for. It won't bring back your friend, but it could help you. You will never feel safe unless the entire world is disarmed except you. You assume everyone is out to commit a crime or has the potential to if they happen to own a firearm and have this quirk about privacy.

Oh, so you get to blow my fucking head off FIRST...is that how it works? what ever happened to PREVENTING FUCKING CRIME??


Well, let's see...I have to find you, actually make it on to your property, into your house, and get by the shotgun you have. I'd say that's probably enough of a deterrent. It's well known that if someone is determined to kill another, they will find a way. You're never going to be safe, kid.


Yes. I AM assuming that, because you are so strenuously oppsed to a simple fucking background check. This makes me wonder what, exactly, is it that you have to hide.


You sound exactly like John Ashcroft. You have no business in my life, unless I deem it necessary. God, you're really paranoid.


You're right. Coulda been. But if it WAS, the assailant woulda had to get close enough where my dear friend woulda at least had a chance to FIGHT BACK! No, instead some asswiope coward popped her in the head with a gun, and took off. Couldn't do it that easy with a knife, or a hammer.


Popped in the head, you say? What caliber round? If it was a pistol round, it's not the easiest thing in the world to hit a moving target in the head at range, which means your friend had at least SOME modicum of warning. Also, had she a pistol of her own, she WOULD have had that fighting chance you mentioned. Many can throw knives and even axes. The weapon doesn't matter.


I don't assume that. I DO, however, recognize that you owning a gun makes it that much easier for you to infringe on my rights. Which is why I insist you be subject to a background check before being allowed to purchase a gun. Again, I have to ask: If your intentions are truly benign, then why are you so opposed to a background check?


<sigh> Kid, I already have government clearance, but only because I contract with them. It's none of your business (or the government's for that matter) what my life is like. You are not the subjective end-all to decide who gets a firearm and who doesn't. You're more than welcome to try, though.


No, not paranoid.


Yeah, paranoid. You think I'm going to come and shoot you.


I do not know you, or what your intentions may be in owning a gun.


I've already told you. If you think every one is lying and has something to hide, you have quite the pathetic, lonely existence. I pity you.


I recognize the gun makes it much easier for you to infringe on MY rights, and thus, I insist on the background check, to insure that there is at least no obvious indicator that you MAY be planning on using your gun to deprive me of my rights.


Sheesh. If I were going to make your life hell, I'd do it electronically. Your paranoia is what is causing you to think I'm going to attack you or anyone else. In all my years, I have yet to be even charged with anything remotely resembling violence.


Maybe if the asswipe who popped her didn't have a gun, she wouldn't have HAD to defend herself!


Yo, they criminals will always have the weapons. Bans only stop you and me from getting them.


And I'm not asking that the GUN be subjected to the background check. I'm asking that the PERSON who wants to own the gun be subject to a background check.


Why not just low-jack everyone, so we can ALWAYS keep track of those pesky humans?


At least with those other weapons, you gotta get close enough to me where I have a fighting chance to defend myself.

Do I? Those throwing knives that I mentioned earlier....I don't have to be near you at all. You're stuck on the device. Get past that and try to stop murder, rape, and battery.

I hate to say it, but your argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. You really need to study up on the issue, instead of just going with your emotions. You don't know any of the facts and figures dealing with gun control--you just have wild assumptions that come from who-knows-where.

Now I get it. You think everyone else with a gun thinks like you do, expecting to shoot someone.

God, you are really screwed up in the head, kid. I wouldn't want someone like you owning a firearm, either. But, since you aparently don't have a criminal record and have a legally purchased firearm (it IS legal isn't it?), I can't really tell stop you from owning one....ah well, that's how freedom works. I guess I'll just have to cope with a maniac with a gun. See how easy it is?

Mayhaps that suggested psych exam wouldn't be such a bad idea after all?

First of all, I am a SHE. Secondly, no amount of counseling is gonna bring back Terrianne, and no amount of counseling is going to bring the asswipe who took her out to justice.

But her death coulda been PREVENTED...if the asswipe hadn't been able to GET a gun, he wouldn't have been ABLE to blow her fucking head off.

QED.

Regardless of your gender, you still haven't dealt with the trauma, and it REALLY affects your thinking and rationale.

Criminals will never be prevented from gaining firearms--get it through your skull.

You know what? Be scared, run and hide, and never deal with anything. Keep blaming the tool. I'm not going to discuss this anymore with someone who can't logically and rationally argue a point, who constantly relies on their crutch of pain as a reason to attack the rights of others.

Get counseling before you really fuck someone else's life up.

Mayhaps that suggested psych exam wouldn't be such a bad idea after all?

As much as I'd like to have her take one, until she screws up and attacks someone, we really can't. Her rights are just as valid as anyone else's.


:(

As much as I'd like to have her take one, until she screws up and attacks someone, we really can't. Her rights are just as valid as anyone else's.


:(

I know, I was being facetious.
According to her arguement though, she shouldn't be allowed to own one. She's more of a danger than any of us.

Not just "technically", it is absolutely an SMG. I didn't jump at it, because, neither is a G3 (it's a battle rifle/automatic rifle), and I wasn't exactly sure I understood the whole sentence.
Yes, it absolutely can kill. Most of the time, it will penetrate the skull, so a good shooter can generally kill a still target at close ranges with one. With non-deforming or slightly deforming ammunition it is quite likely to get to the penetrate deep enough into the human torso to sever the major arteries -- but it will still crush a pitifully small hole.

IThe ".22 is ultralethal" myth is a pet peeve of mine. Also, I figure if someone talks about firearms they are generally open to find out more, so I try to correct any errors they make. In particular, I try to kill off the stupid myths before they propagate.


actually a .22 lr is very deadly, especially in the hands of someone that has a clue, i can personally say that i have killed and antelope over 150 yards with a .22, if you don't believe me that is your problem, but if you know where to shoot it can become a deadly weapon even at range

and the whole bit about the hole in the brain isn't quite accurate, there is a documented case of a man havein an arrow through his head, meaning that it penatrated the brain and he was very much alive, walkin around and talkin fine, just had a headache.

The American 180 is actually one of the most deadly short to medium range weapons out there. It's essentially a tommygun in .22 caliber, except with a higher ROF.

I know, I was being facetious.
According to her arguement though, she shouldn't be allowed to own one. She's more of a danger than any of us.

There's our freedom-loving double-edged sword. Ah well, whaddaya gonna do?

PS. I knew you knew. ;) I think that was more for the others reading the thread. You've always been on the freedom side of the conversations.
:cool:

There's our freedom-loving double-edged sword. Ah well, whaddaya gonna do?



Ban Double-Edged Swords?

and the whole bit about the hole in the brain isn't quite accurate, there is a documented case of a man havein an arrow through his head, meaning that it penatrated the brain and he was very much alive, walkin around and talkin fine, just had a headache.
There is very little hydrostatic shock when dealing with arrows, the same cannot be said of most bullets.

There is very little hydrostatic shock when dealing with arrows, the same cannot be said of most bullets.There is no such thing as "hydrostatic shock", it is a misnomer for the pressure waves that occur when high velocity projectiles hit animals (incl. humans). Read this (http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy), for example. I don't blame you for believing in "hydrostatic shock", though, because that's spread all over the place by people who really should know what the hell they're talking about.

With most handguns and shotguns, the pressure waves have a negligible effect on the actual tissue damage caused. It's only when you get to very high velocities that the pressure begins to matter, tearing tissue apart. Of course, that velocity limit is bound to be much lower for the brain, which is practically floating in a liquid and is not particularly tensile (compared to muscle tissue, for example).

actually a .22 lr is very deadly, especially in the hands of someone that has a clue, i can personally say that i have killed and antelope over 150 yards with a .22, if you don't believe me that is your problem, but if you know where to shoot it can become a deadly weapon even at rangeNote that I wasn't saying you can't kill things with a .22 LR, only that it's worse for killing things than just about any other caliber in common use today. Did you happen to hit the antelope in the brain/spine? Straight through the aorta or one of the major arteries between the aorta and the brain?

and the whole bit about the hole in the brain isn't quite accurate, there is a documented case of a man havein an arrow through his head, meaning that it penatrated the brain and he was very much alive, walkin around and talkin fine, just had a headache.There's also the story of Phineas Gage (http://www.deakin.edu.au/hbs/GAGEPAGE/Pgstory.htm). That doesn't change the fact that nearly everybody who gets a hole through their brain dies immediately. I did say something to the effect that if you're so insanely lucky that you survive a .22 LR through your brain, you just might be lucky enough to survive bullet bigger and faster than that.

The American 180 is actually one of the most deadly short to medium range weapons out there. It's essentially a tommygun in .22 caliber, except with a higher ROF.I expect the point of the weapon is its negligible recoil, which allows for very accurate fully automatic fire. You need to hit a human something like 5-6 times with a .22 LR HP to get about the same total amount of tissue damage as with 1 .45 ACP HP round. Plus you are never going to penetrate any ballistic body armor with that thing, unless you find armor piercing .22 LR rounds -- which will limit you to a whopping 5.5mm permanent wound cavity.

Hi all, First post!

I am continually amuzed at peoples insistance that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is an right with out qualification. Never do I hear anyone mention the first clause in that sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,".

The founders of this Great Nation spelt it out pretty clearly. They answered the why, not so people could hunt, or target shoot, or collect guns.... So I think that all people that want to own guns should join the National Guard in their respective States and have fun in Iraq. :sniper:
Go read the definition of militia in your state constitution. I am a member of my state's militia and you probably are too if you're a male citizen of at least 18.
If you honestly believe the right to bear arms can legally be infringed on all but those who subject themselves to combat in foreign wars, you're reading something that's not there.

If you really look at the wording of the Second Ammendment, it's clear that it does not "grant" a right or privilage to anyone. The wording simply acknowledges a right, forbids government from infringing on that right, and gives a reason. The reason given doesn't really have any bearing on the legal meaning. It could've said, "The color of the sky being blue (or pink), the right of...", and would still mean the same thing. It is not a conditional statement like, "If the sky is blue, ..." or "So long as a well regulated militia is necessary..."

I'm not about to read 26 pages to see if this has already been said, so I'll just say it. I believe that this is a social issue. Libertarians are socially liberal. Libertarians are also very clear on their opposition to gun control. The fact that Democrats want gun control and Republicans don't is the real issue here, and I agree that it's quite befuddling. It might be because the two parties used to believe exactly the opposite of what they do now, and they just haven't made the transition on that issue yet.

The question I would like to throw out to stimulate discussion (I'm not expressing a viewpoint) is whether or not the second amendment is really valid anymore.

It states that the maintenance of a well-ordered militia is necessary to the well-being of the union (paraphrase) so citizens have the right to arms.
The 2A is still valid. It has not been repealed. And it doesn't say why people have a right to keep and bear arms but only that this right shall not be infringed.


But is a militia really necessary anymore when we have the most powerful military in the world? The War of 1812 has been brought up, but that was over 100 years ago when we didn't have the standing military and reserve power that we have today.
Just a ramble.
Actually, a strong militia is necessary now more than ever precisely because we have such a strong national military.

Ban Double-Edged Swords?

So anyone with a katana is safe.
:D

Actually, a strong militia is necessary now more than ever precisely because we have such a strong national military.

And all the neocons in office....

You keep on saying that the right to your life and safety is not given. Now check out THIS!

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... so how does my gun ownership deprive you of anything?


Also:

Baddbing- BADABOOM! Join the militia and you get a gun. One that is required for "a well regulated Militia", not a sawed-off shotgun or AK-47. The AK is unaccurate, and as such not needed, unless you want to wound large amounts of people instead of just pegging them on the head with a carabine.

Subjective. You don't need a newspaper for freedom of the press, handbills will do. :)

I can only assume that you've never actually shot an AK and are either one of those PC/RPG gamers or are relying on some kind of anecdotal evidence.
(This is not a flame!)

Further "pegging people in the head with a carbine" -- have you ever TRIED to shoot a moving, live target? There is a REASON why modern firearms have evolved the way they have. WW1, WW2 & other conflicts (esp. Vietnam) proved how hard it is to actually do 1 shot - 1 kill.

- Liberals think that if guns get into circulation they will get into the wrong hands. eg. Kids may start playing with a gun that belongs to thier parents and then a thief may steal it off them.

- Liberals think that users may not be cabable of using a gun responsibly. eg. Someone may be shot during an angry drunken fight.

- Liberals think that criminals should have rights too.

Now I get it. You think everyone else with a gun thinks like you do, expecting to shoot someone.

God, you are really screwed up in the head, kid. I wouldn't want someone like you owning a firearm, either. But, since you aparently don't have a criminal record and have a legally purchased firearm (it IS legal isn't it?), I can't really tell stop you from owning one....ah well, that's how freedom works. I guess I'll just have to cope with a maniac with a gun. See how easy it is?

No, I'm not screwed in the head. just because I do not think like you do does not make me screwed in the head. Brilliant debater you are not.
I just don't kid myself about the gun's purpose, that's all.

I have the gun for but one purpose. I don't think I need to rehash it. We all know what I have the gun for. And yes, it is legal. And it is never leaving my house, except on those occasions when I go to the firing range to keep in practice with it, so that, God forbid I ever AM forced to use it for it's intended purpose, I will be ready, willing, and able to.

There are but two products on the market, that I know of, that, when used as directed, kills people. One is cigarettes. The other is guns.

You may think I'm screwed in the head. So be it. The beauty of this country is that you are entitled to think that of me. But, in reality, I just don't kid myself about the gun's purpose.

ON EDIT: And you never have to worry about this "maniac with a gun" unless you cross my threshhold, and I get the idea that your intentions are to hurt me or take my property. And if you come onto my property with YOUR gun, I am going to assume your intentions are just that.

Wrong Hands Idea - Nevermind criminals takin' them from lil' kids, what about teenagers with an axe to grind searching their parents' rooms?

Rights Idea - If you mean the right not to get killed on a (maybe)mistaken assumption, then yes. We have courts for a reason.

Just my thoughts...

1. The old "if you don't have something to hide" arguement. They used that in England too. Would you support cameras pointing into your home? If you don't have anything to hide....

2. Fine, hope your dog doesn't get in the way. You still didn't answer my question.

3. The pen is mightier than the sword. A right is a right and they're both fruit.

4. Once again, as a LAC, I HAVE proven it. If I commit a crime then I'm no longer a LAC and have my rights restricted.

5. So you feel the police are incompetant officials and yet you want to give the Gov't, an even larger and openly incompentent organization, authority to determine how you should defend yourself? The scum that shot your friend most likely didn't legally own the gun in the first place. How will inhibiting the ownership of firearms to LAC(which is what BGC are really for) keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?

6. See #5

7. You have stated previously what you feel your rights are. They exist nowhere except in your imagination.

You have already admitted that your intentions are hostile. By your definition, you should have your gun taken away as you "may" hurt someone inadvertantly w/ it.

I don't care if you are a he, she, or an it. You have a severe emotional trauma in your background that you need serious counseling for. It won't bring back your friend, but it could help you. You will never feel safe unless the entire world is disarmed except you. You assume everyone is out to commit a crime or has the potential to if they happen to own a firearm and have this quirk about privacy.

1. Cameras in my home? No. I'm not going to allow someone to maybe get film of me in the shower, thank you very much.

5. No, I don't think the cops are incompetent. I think they are lazy, and don't give a shit about Joe/Jane Average. Once, my car was broken into. Only took the fucking cops four hours to come out. By then, the fuckhead was long gone, and I got stuck with the bill for fixed the smashed window. Maybe if the cops woulda come when I called them, we coulda nailed the son of a bitch, and I woulda had him in court to pay for my damages, as well as hang a criminal count on him.
Incidentally, it was after that incident that I chose to go get a gun. Once I recognized the police could not, or would not protect me...I got a gun.

And yes, I do believe the worst in everyone, until I know otherwise. I have seen the mean, sick underbelly of humanity. This is one reason why I live alone and like it that way. I don't trust other people, and it is just that simple.

Regardless of your gender, you still haven't dealt with the trauma, and it REALLY affects your thinking and rationale.

Criminals will never be prevented from gaining firearms--get it through your skull.

You know what? Be scared, run and hide, and never deal with anything. Keep blaming the tool. I'm not going to discuss this anymore with someone who can't logically and rationally argue a point, who constantly relies on their crutch of pain as a reason to attack the rights of others.

Get counseling before you really fuck someone else's life up.

I haven't fucked anyone else's life up.

SOME ASSHOLE WITH A GUN FUCKED MYLIFE UP, DAMN YOU!!

No, I'm not screwed in the head. just because I do not think like you do does not make me screwed in the head. Brilliant debater you are not. I just don't kid myself about the gun's purpose, that's all.


That's what all people who need, yet refuse, to seek counseling say.


I have the gun for but one purpose. I don't think I need to rehash it. We all know what I have the gun for. And yes, it is legal. And it is never leaving my house, except on those occasions when I go to the firing range to keep in practice with it, so that, God forbid I ever AM forced to use it for it's intended purpose, I will be ready, willing, and able to.


Fine. YOU have it for one purpose. I have it for several purposes. Just because you think I will only go out and shoot babies with it, doesn't mean I will. Nor do I have to prove that I won't--that is assumed because we are in AMERICA. Geez, learn the law.


There are but two products on the market, that I know of, that, when used as directed, kills people. One is cigarettes. The other is guns.


Funny, I use my firearm as directed, and have yet to kill someone. How could that be possible? Oh yeah! BECAUSE I'M NOT A MURDERING CRIMINAL.


You may think I'm screwed in the head. So be it. The beauty of this country is that you are entitled to think that of me. But, in reality, I just don't kid myself about the gun's purpose.

The other beauty of this country is that I also have the right to have unfettered access to firearms because I haven't broken the law....

I don't kid myself about the gun's purpose either. It's a hobby, a challenge, potential food-gathering tool, and yes, a defensive weapon, should the need arise. You're the one saying it can only do one thing. That's your limited mind-set. You're making a decision without seeing all sides and gathering all the information. Do some research, get some actual facts, and stop basing your decisions on fear and pain.

I know, I was being facetious.
According to her arguement though, she shouldn't be allowed to own one. She's more of a danger than any of us.

Nope. No danger whatsoever. I just don't kid myself about the PURPOSE of a gun.

I haven't fucked anyone else's life up.

SOME ASSHOLE WITH A GUN FUCKED MYLIFE UP, DAMN YOU!!

You will, if you don't get help. I actually fear for your dog.

Nope. No danger whatsoever. I just don't kid myself about the PURPOSE of a gun.

YOUR defined purpose of a gun. Based on emotional trauma that you won't seek assistance for.

1. Cameras in my home? No. I'm not going to allow someone to maybe get film of me in the shower, thank you very much.


Then you MUST have something to hide! Yeah, that argument works both ways. What are you hiding?


5. No, I don't think the cops are incompetent. I think they are lazy, and don't give a shit about Joe/Jane Average. Once, my car was broken into. Only took the fucking cops four hours to come out. By then, the fuckhead was long gone, and I got stuck with the bill for fixed the smashed window. Maybe if the cops woulda come when I called them, we coulda nailed the son of a bitch, and I woulda had him in court to pay for my damages, as well as hang a criminal count on him.
Incidentally, it was after that incident that I chose to go get a gun. Once I recognized the police could not, or would not protect me...I got a gun.


Gee, maybe others are buying firearms for self-defense as well? Do you realize how many LEGALLY owned firearms are used in crimes? VERY few.


And yes, I do believe the worst in everyone, until I know otherwise. I have seen the mean, sick underbelly of humanity. This is one reason why I live alone and like it that way. I don't trust other people, and it is just that simple.

You have a very sad existence. Meanwhile, most of the original restrictions that the constitution held, were directed at the government, not the people. The people are assumed innocent (good) and not guilty (evil). That's the way it works here. Get with the program, or try to convince 200 million people you're right, to change the constitution. Your choice. I'd suggest getting with the program and getting some help. Your clearly emotional outbursts won't convince too many.

Wrong Hands Idea - Nevermind criminals takin' them from lil' kids, what about teenagers with an axe to grind searching their parents' rooms?

Rights Idea - If you mean the right not to get killed on a (maybe)mistaken assumption, then yes. We have courts for a reason.

Just my thoughts...

Yeah, well. No court will ever bring Terrianne back to life, will it?

That's what all people who need, yet refuse, to seek counseling say.



Fine. YOU have it for one purpose. I have it for several purposes. Just because you think I will only go out and shoot babies with it, doesn't mean I will. Nor do I have to prove that I won't--that is assumed because we are in AMERICA. Geez, learn the law.



Funny, I use my firearm as directed, and have yet to kill someone. How could that be possible? Oh yeah! BECAUSE I'M NOT A MURDERING CRIMINAL.



The other beauty of this country is that I also have the right to have unfettered access to firearms because I haven't broken the law....

I don't kid myself about the gun's purpose either. It's a hobby, a challenge, potential food-gathering tool, and yes, a defensive weapon, should the need arise. You're the one saying it can only do one thing. That's your limited mind-set. You're making a decision without seeing all sides and gathering all the information. Do some research, get some actual facts, and stop basing your decisions on fear and pain.

1. May I see your Ph.D.? If not, you can quit psychoanalyzing me.

2. If you're NOT a murdering criminal, then WHY are you so opposed to a little background check? Christ, the background checks now in place are so pathetically inadequate that most criminals would probably pass them, anyway. I favor tougher background checks, but, until, and unless, we can get THAT out into law, we have to deal with what IS, for now. And you're opposed to even the pathetic checks now in place.

3. You forget that we all create our own reality. Our perceptions shape our reality. My perceptions have been fucked up by murdering assholes with guns, okay?

You will, if you don't get help. I actually fear for your dog.

How DARE you??? Are you accusing me of EVER doing anything to intentionally hurt my dog?? the most I have ever done to hurt my dog is once, I accidentally rooled up the car window on her paw, and I agonized over it for weeks...long after she had forgiven me for it. she knew damn well I didn't MEAN to hurt her.

I'm sorry, but you just stepped over the line, and have personally attacked me now, with your comment about fearing for my dog.

I have nothing further to say to you until you fucking apologize and mean it.

YOUR defined purpose of a gun. Based on emotional trauma that you won't seek assistance for.

I don't need assistance. I need JUSTICE!!

And I need to know that no one else that I love is gonna get popped in the head by a murdering asshole.

and, once again...may I see your Ph.D.? If not, you can quit the psychoanalyzing bullshit right now.

And NOW, I really DO have nothing further to say to you until you apologize and mean it.

Yeah, well. No court will ever bring Terrianne back to life, will it?

No it won't. But neither will infringing the rights of millions of other people.

I am truly sorry for your loss, but you have to find a way to deal with the wounds left by a VERY tragic time.

Damn it, punishing the rest of the world won't help you or anyone else.

I suggest that for anyone who doesn't believe in the private ownership of firearms, and the open or concealed carry of firearms, that instead of resorting to the sort of violence they abhor (as evidenced by Bernard Goetz), that when attacked by thugs in the night, that they resort to the sort of thing Kitty Genovese tried.

We'll see whose methods work better.

3. You forget that we all create our own reality. Our perceptions shape our reality. My perceptions have been fucked up by murdering assholes with guns, okay?

Yeah, we're all quite aware. Fix it. Or at least make an attempt down a path in that direction.

How DARE you??? Are you accusing me of EVER doing anything to intentionally hurt my dog?? the most I have ever done to hurt my dog is once, I accidentally rooled up the car window on her paw, and I agonized over it for weeks...long after she had forgiven me for it. she knew damn well I didn't MEAN to hurt her.


Yet you assume the worst in everyone else. Nice double standard. Same goes for me and a firearm. I would never intentionally use it to hurt another unless I'm being attacked. I have no proof you won't hurt your dog, or train it to attack others. Where's YOUR regulation? This is your argument. Now that I point your own logic process at you, you get upset, why could that be? Because it's illogical, perhaps? Definitely insulting, certainly.


I'm sorry, but you just stepped over the line, and have personally attacked me now, with your comment about fearing for my dog.


Lady, you personally attacked me when you went after my 2nd Amendment rights.


I have nothing further to say to you until you fucking apologize and mean it.

Ooooo.... <wiggles fingers> I've been put on ignore lists before. <yawn>

I don't need assistance. I need JUSTICE!!


THAT I would fully support you on.


And I need to know that no one else that I love is gonna get popped in the head by a murdering asshole.


Can't happen in this reality. It will always be a possiblity.


and, once again...may I see your Ph.D.? If not, you can quit the psychoanalyzing bullshit right now.


Nah, I'm enjoying being completely honest with you, since you won't with yourself.


And NOW, I really DO have nothing further to say to you until you apologize and mean it.

I don't apologize for being honest.

So why exactly do Liberals want to completely ban guns?
As I've noted on this board before, many liberals are elitist. They do NOT trust the common man or woman to be able to take care of their own life. They definitely do NOT trust us to take care of our own problems, much less own a gun. After all, in the unlikely event the left should ever recover sufficently from the last election to sieze power, they don't want the common heard to be able to overthrow them when ( not if ) they begin to abuse their power.

Facism is a governmental issue. Yes, it applies to any citizen.

How is it a government issue? It was a local election issue, perhaps... and an issue of human rights, perhaps - but I'm not sure how the whole government becomes implicated in it... unless, of course, I had been living in Italy in the 1930's....

As I've noted on this board before, many liberals are elitist. They do NOT trust the common man or woman to be able to take care of their own life. They definitely do NOT trust us to take care of our own problems, much less own a gun. After all, in the unlikely event the left should ever recover sufficently from the last election to sieze power, they don't want the common heard to be able to overthrow them when ( not if ) they begin to abuse their power.

Yeah, that's how socialism generally goes. We're just turing into a nation of victims, with no personal responsiblity and no ability to manage our own lives. And we're letting it happen! Ugh.

Yeah, we're all quite aware. Fix it. Or at least make an attempt down a path in that direction.

Who says it NEEDS fixing? Just because MY perceptions don't conform to YOUR reality, or your convenience doesn't mean MY perceptions are any less valid.

How is it a government issue? It was a local election issue, perhaps... and an issue of human rights, perhaps - but I'm not sure how the whole government becomes implicated in it... unless, of course, I had been living in Italy in the 1930's....

Facism is a political movement. It is a method of governing, so yes it a governmental issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
How DARE you??? Are you accusing me of EVER doing anything to intentionally hurt my dog?? the most I have ever done to hurt my dog is once, I accidentally rooled up the car window on her paw, and I agonized over it for weeks...long after she had forgiven me for it. she knew damn well I didn't MEAN to hurt her.




Yet you assume the worst in everyone else. Nice double standard. Same goes for me and a firearm. I would never intentionally use it to hurt another unless I'm being attacked. I have no proof you won't hurt your dog, or train it to attack others. Where's YOUR regulation? This is your argument. Now that I point your own logic process at you, you get upset, why could that be? Because it's illogical, perhaps? Definitely insulting, certainly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
I'm sorry, but you just stepped over the line, and have personally attacked me now, with your comment about fearing for my dog.




Lady, you personally attacked me when you went after my 2nd Amendment rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucksnort
I have nothing further to say to you until you fucking apologize and mean it.



Ooooo.... <wiggles fingers> I've been put on ignore lists before. <yawn>

You probably want to attack OTHERS with your Second amendment rights. Why else would you so vigorously defend them?

Screw it. you're a gun nut, nothing I do or say will make a shred of difference to you, you care only for yourself, and not for anyone else, so fuck it, welcome to my ignore list. I have had it with you.

As I've noted on this board before, many liberals are elitist. They do NOT trust the common man or woman to be able to take care of their own life. They definitely do NOT trust us to take care of our own problems, much less own a gun. After all, in the unlikely event the left should ever recover sufficently from the last election to sieze power, they don't want the common heard to be able to overthrow them when ( not if ) they begin to abuse their power.

Yeah? That so? I don't see the LEFT calling everyone who doesn't agree with the current Administration "enemy combatants!!"

I don't see the LEFT attacking FIRST AMENDMENT rights!

I don't see the LEFT forcing those with an unpopular opinion to stand a mile away from the object of their protest, so that The Emperor With No Clothes can go about his fantasy that this whole country loves him!

What ELSE did you think The PATRIOT Act was for, exceot for limiting the ability of the people to overthrow the current Administration when they began (note: began, past tense) abusing THEIR power?

Yeah? That so? I don't see the LEFT calling everyone who doesn't agree with the current Administration "enemy combatants!!"


Instead we see the left calling those who DO agree with it "Warmongers" and "Nut-Jobs"

I don't see the LEFT attacking FIRST AMENDMENT rights!

I do. Campaign Finance reform laws aimed at limiting select advocacy groups from campaigning near election time. That came out of LEFT field. And by the way, Senator McCain is NOT Right Wing anymore.

I don't see the LEFT forcing those with an unpopular opinion to stand a mile away from the object of their protest, so that The Emperor With No Clothes can go about his fantasy that this whole country loves him!

I do. Go to www.protestwarrior.com and see what happens when conservative counterprotesters dare to show up near a LEFT wing rally.

No, I'm against it because it's forcing me to do extraneous activities, spending money, and losing time to use a guaranteed right. That's my problem with it.


Taking a test that would prevent maniacs from owning weapons is too much trouble for you? You don't see why you should be inconvenienced, and you are willing to put your 'comfort' above the potential safety of every other individual in the nation.


Ah, but if you had your way, it would interfere with my future. So it doesn't matter if you are talking retroactive or not--I do plan to purchase in the future.


Why? How much death do you need? Is the new generation of deer bullet-proof? Are those pesky Mexicans that were discussed earlier, coming across the border in Armoured Personnel Carriers now?


It wasn't. Lincoln was the first of a slew of socialist presidents.


Irrelevent.


Fine, if you're not an American, I apologize. If you are, you don't know how our government works.


Apparently, I have a much better understanding than some of the people here. How do you define "American"?


I said I want most of government reduced. The original government of the US didn't control very much at all.


The 'original' government was tribal chiefs.


Yet you want controls for when the firearm is in a case. Interesting.


Not at all - I would like to see controls one WHO can purchase firearms... and only a fairly minimal control, at that. Just a basic test to weed out the psycho-element.... which you don't want to take....


I don't think they should be armed. My issue with gun control is it is mostly pre-emptive. It's rarely after someone has proved that they aren't responsible or competent. It's a first-strike.

Yes... it IS pre-emptive. It's hard to PREVENT bullets from killing people AFTER they have been fired... much easier to stop dangerous elements from owning weapons to start with.

As I've noted on this board before, many liberals are elitist. They do NOT trust the common man or woman to be able to take care of their own life. They definitely do NOT trust us to take care of our own problems, much less own a gun. After all, in the unlikely event the left should ever recover sufficently from the last election to sieze power, they don't want the common heard to be able to overthrow them when ( not if ) they begin to abuse their power.

I agree 100%. The worst part about it is the same people who insist that we're not competent or honest enough to own a firearm are deluding themselves into believing that the police (as much as we love and appreciate them) often don't arrive until it's too late.

Liberal scenario:

You wake up in the middle of the night, roused by a noise of breaking glass in your living room. You quietly get up and investigate, and as you creep down the stairs you realize you have an intruder. Rushing back up the stairs you wake your spouse to call 911 while you go back downstairs with a baseball bat (just in case). You know that because Gun Control laws are amazingly efffective he can't possibly be armed. You turn on the lights and engage the intruder in a dialogue about how unfortunate it is that he has chosen this life of crime to survive in the hostile climate created by the big-business loving Republicans, and how none of this is really his fault. Meanwhile the police have arrived and escort him to an intervention center where he receives money, welfare and a new TV set to get him back on his feet.

Reality:

You wake up in the middle of the night, roused by a noise of breaking glass in your living room. You quietly get up and investigate, and as you creep down the stairs you realize you have an intruder. Rushing back up the stairs you wake your spouse to call 911 while you go back downstairs with a baseball bat (Because if this is Washington DC you sure won't be holding a gun). Unfortunately, the intruder is not concerned with gun laws and puts three round in your chest. As you lay on your living room floor bleeding through multiple sucking chest wounds, the intruder rushes upstairs and rapes your spouse, leaving her with a knife in her chest and is long before the police arrive, because their response time is not nearly as fast as the intruder was.

Conservative Scenario:

You wake up in the middle of the night, roused by a noise of breaking glass in your living room. You quietly get up and investigate, getting out your trusty .45 cal and as you creep down the stairs you realize you have an intruder. Rushing back up the stairs you wake your spouse to call 911 while you go back downstairs, safety off and a round chambered. The sound of you racking the slide startles the intruder and he darts back out the window and into the night. By the time the police arrive you're sitting in your easy chair, wishing they'd hurry up with their investigation so you can board up the window to keep out the cold until morning.

My kinda scenario:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4033749.stm

Regardless of your gender, you still haven't dealt with the trauma, and it REALLY affects your thinking and rationale.

Criminals will never be prevented from gaining firearms--get it through your skull.

You know what? Be scared, run and hide, and never deal with anything. Keep blaming the tool. I'm not going to discuss this anymore with someone who can't logically and rationally argue a point, who constantly relies on their crutch of pain as a reason to attack the rights of others.

Get counseling before you really fuck someone else's life up.

So - your response to someone else's real pain and real concern, is to mock, insult and bully them...

I think I have worked out why you are so obsessed with weapons, and so reluctant to be tested for 'suitability'.

I know, I was being facetious.
According to her arguement though, she shouldn't be allowed to own one. She's more of a danger than any of us.

I can't believe that anyone would post anything this stupid and hurtful.

The ONLY person here with a real valid reason to own (as you and your associates claim as a necessary freedom), since it is based on a person experience with harm - rather than a testoserone fueled need for 'things that kill'... and you would DENY that person access.

Freedom? Hypocrite.

That's what all people who need, yet refuse, to seek counseling say.



Grow up.

Lady, you personally attacked me when you went after my 2nd Amendment rights.


So - if someone debates politics with you, it is okay to attack them.

THAT is why there should be tests for people to be allowed guns.


Ooooo.... <wiggles fingers> I've been put on ignore lists before. <yawn>

No surprise. You should have learned the lesson, maybe.

You wake up in the middle of the night, roused by a noise of breaking glass in your living room. You quietly get up and investigate, getting out your trusty .45 cal and as you creep down the stairs you realize you have an intruder. Rushing back up the stairs you wake your spouse to call 911 while you go back downstairs, safety off and a round chambered. The sound of you racking the slide startles the intruder and he darts back out the window and into the night. By the time the police arrive you're sitting in your easy chair, wishing they'd hurry up with their investigation so you can board up the window to keep out the cold until morning.

That's just retarded. ;)

A 12 gauge pump action makes a much louder more distinctive sound when chambering a round. Also, I think #6 birdshot will lethally incapacitate an intruder without penetrating walls, in case there are others in the house. 45 ball ammo will penetrate a standard brick wall and is more difficult to fire under stress. Personally, I would recommend a Benelli auto loader for home defence.

That's just retarded. ;)

A 12 gauge pump action makes a much louder more distinctive sound when chambering a round. Also, I think #6 birdshot will lethally incapacitate an intruder without penetrating walls, in case there are others in the house. 45 ball ammo will penetrate a standard brick wall and is more difficult to fire under stress. Personally, I would recommend a Benelli auto loader for home defence.

I stand corrected ;)

Actually, my .45 is an M1911A1 Government model and I got it more for its collecting value (It's an actual Colt!) than anything else. For home defense I'm considering a CZ or a Glock in the 9mm range.

Yeah, that's how socialism generally goes. We're just turing into a nation of victims, with no personal responsiblity and no ability to manage our own lives. And we're letting it happen! Ugh.

Sorry, which nation do you live in?

I thought you said america... but now you are talking about socialism....

Birdshot at the distance you might encounter within a medium-sized house is most probably going to spread very little - it will likely be close enough to strike as a single mass - and will be extremely lethal. Very likely unoperable, if the target survives the trip to the hospital.

A 9mm will penetrate more walls than a 45 ACP. It has a well justified reputation for being a round with a lot of penetration.

Getting shot by virtually anything is a potentially lethal situation. The question that most gun owners want to know is "will it stop them in their tracks". Whether or not the target dies is not an issue for them. You can be shot, and live long enough to kill your attacker if not hit hard in the right place. You can be shot, and fall down and lay there until you expire. In either case, the shot is lethal, but the desired result is the "stop".

As soon as they invent the phaser with stun setting, and it works like the trek version, I'll happily trade in my 45.

Facism is a political movement. It is a method of governing, so yes it a governmental issue.

Only if the government is fascistic.

I wasn't opposing the government, I was opposing fascists.

(In fact, part of what I was involved in was an attempt to stop a certain fascist group from involvement in local government).

Whether or not the target dies is not an issue for them. You can be shot, and live long enough to kill your attacker if not hit hard in the right place. You can be shot, and fall down and lay there until you expire. In either case, the shot is lethal, but the desired result is the "stop".It really is too bad that, with current technology, the only way to achieve such a "stop" is by causing severe trauma to the targets central nervous system, which you can either achieve by getting a clear shot at a still target at close range and being skilled with your weapon, or by using an M134 loaded with expanding rounds. Either approach has "slight problems".

A 9mm will penetrate more walls than a 45 ACP. It has a well justified reputation for being a round with a lot of penetration.


Actually, this isn't the case. I agree with everything else you said, but not this part. In a study of various penetrations of various caliber rounds, it was found that the mass of the round has more to do with its penetration than any other factor. This seems counterintuitive, since in the energy equation velocity is squared and mass is not, and since a 9mm round has a much higher muzzle velocity than a .45, one would assume the penetration was better...

But not so. The .45 penetrates much deeper. In fact, the real reason police jurisdictions switched from .45 to 9mm or .38 is because of the danger of the round going all the way through the target and injuring someone behind them or causing property damage. A 9mm is more likely to remain lodged in the target which, for law enforcement, is the more desireable result.

I stand corrected ;)

Actually, my .45 is an M1911A1 Government model and I got it more for its collecting value (It's an actual Colt!) than anything else. For home defense I'm considering a CZ or a Glock in the 9mm range.

I have 3 1911's of diffrent makes, which is why I wouldn't specifically recommend them for home use. I would go with a revolver. A semi auto could jam, and there's the question of what if your spouse needs to use it. A revolver is a pretty much foolproof weapon, and the bigger the better: .45 long colt or one of the old .455 Webleys.

As soon as they invent the phaser with stun setting, and it works like the trek version, I'll happily trade in my 45.

There have been some pretty positive results with bean bag rounds fired from a 12 gauge shotgun. (thank you History Channel!!) If I knew where to obtain them, I would definitely get some.

If you're really serious about home defence, get a dog. I have the biggest, sweetest German Shepard, and no one will go near my house. Hopefully no one will figure out that he'll just tackle and lick them into submission.

I have 3 1911's of diffrent makes, which is why I wouldn't specifically recommend them for home use. I would go with a revolver. A semi auto could jam, and there's the question of what if your spouse needs to use it. A revolver is a pretty much foolproof weapon, and the bigger the better: .45 long colt or one of the old .455 Webleys.


Agreed that a revolver would be better, especially for my wife who is a small lady and has a little difficulty with the Colt. The problem is we also have children and as yet I don't have one of those combination quick open safes where I feel secure keeping a loaded gun around.

Instead what I'm doing now is taking advantage of the fact that a semi-auto has a clip. My pistol is kept secure in one place, a loaded clip in another. That way I can quickly load it if I need to, but in the meantime it's not presenting a threat to my children.

I'd love one of those quick open safes... You can have a loaded gun in it and when closed, you can only open it by pushing the right comination of buttons. You can open it really fast even in the dark if you have to, as long as you know the combination. Once I have one, I plan to get a .38 snub nose for my wife.

But not so. The .45 penetrates much deeper. In fact, the real reason police jurisdictions switched from .45 to 9mm or .38 is because of the danger of the round going all the way through the target and injuring someone behind them or causing property damage. A 9mm is more likely to remain lodged in the target which, for law enforcement, is the more desireable result.This is mostly true for tissue penetration. The physics of pushing through liquids dictate that mass is more important there than it is when penetrating armor, for example. This is most noticeable when comparing lighter&faster vs. heavier&slower loadings in the same caliber.

For example, a 165gr Federal Hydra-Shok (http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/45acp/fed45-165pdhs-g30.htm) averages 915fps out of a 3.8" pistol barrel for 307 ft-lbs of kinetic energy. Average expansion is 0.68" and average penetration only 9.5" (considered substandard for combat ammunition). In contrast, a 230gr Federal Hydra-Shok (http://www.firearmstactical.com/test_data/45acp/fed45-230hs-g30.htm) averages 815fps out of the same weapon for 339 ft-lbs of kinetic energy. With an average expansion of 0.66" it penetrates 12.9" of bare gelatin. The 10% increase in kinetic energy does not explain 30% increase in penetration, and the same trend can be easily seen everywhere -- you are left with weight being more important as the only possible reason. Alternatively, one can just read any introductory work into terminal ballistics that approaches the matter logically.

Penetration of rigid objects works somewhat differently, penetration of very hard and somewhat rigid objects works almost opposite. In theory, kinetic energy, shape and area should be the three things that determine the penetration potential of a bullet against these kinds of obstacles. However, very high velocity bullets tend to break apart when they hit rigid objects, which means they penetrate very little in practice. This is why most rifles firing FMJ ammunition will penetrate non-metal walls better at several hundred meters than up close. This is also why a 9x19mm FMJ will likely penetrate brick, wood, concrete and stone better than a 5.56x45mm FMJ at close ranges, or will at least be more lethal through such obstacles. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10-1/ch8.pdf)

Depending on the particular ammunition used, then, 9x19mm might penetrate interior walls better or worse than .45 ACP. With non-expanding rounds I'd bet on the 9x19mm, but nobody (except the military) uses non-expanding rounds in pistols for combat use anyway.

Wow... I did not know that. Thank you very much. :)

In the case of cars, absolutely. If cruise missiles were legal to own, then it would be true about them as well. This goes back to what I said earlier in the thread: "I believe the argument is that some items are so dangerous when used, and there is no practical way to stop them from being used, that banning them and thus "limiting personal freedoms" is preferable [to some people] to taking the risk of them being used in an exceptionally illegal manner."
So as long as it is legal to own the missile, we agree. Excellent.


If you actually believe that anti-tank, anti-aircraft and cruise missiles should be legal to own, then I believe my argument was completely justified. If this was a thread about the legal status of drugs and you said you believed all drugs should be legal for recreational use, people wouldn't comment much on legalizing marijuana -- they'd use examples with heroin and other, more addictive, more harmful drugs, just like I'm using examples of the more destructive weapons.
So we agree, then, (that if my train of thought that anything that does not directly infringe upon the liberty of others should be legal), that it should be fine to own anything so long as you pay your taxes or duties and keep current any license and/or ordinance required?


I do not refute this. They are indeed a basic consumer good, items like many others. It's just a question of grading, refer above for my quote of myself.

Right. And I agree that individual guns (like cars) should be tested on a regular basis (yearly, whatever) to ensure they are safe. But banning any particular object outright is wrong.


From the site you linked: "The Stinger is a man-portable, shoulder-fired guided missile system which enables the Marine to effectively engage low-altitude jet, propeller-driven and helicopter aircraft." It is a missile that goes from surface to air, a Surface to Air Missile. You might as well claim an M249 is not a machinegun and link a website about the M2HB instead.

Mil domains refuse most connection attempts from abroad, but I can only assume the website you linked was about the HAWK or Patriot missile systems. Here (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/javelin.htm) are (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mistral.htm) a (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm) few (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-14.htm) other (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-16.htm) SAMs (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-18.htm) which wouldn't be too expensive.

I’m saying that TOW, Stingers, RPGs, LAWs, et al “man crewed” weapons are of one type and that all vehicle crewed weapons ala Hawk or the Soviet SA-series are of another.
Sure, you may be able to shoot down an aircraft with the first. You may be able to sail from Cuba to Florida in a packing crate, too. But that does not make the packing crate (sea worthy though it is!) a ship. :)


Yes, depends on the perspective. I'm also a commiepinkochinesenazihippiefascistkiller in some people's experience.

Nah. You guys just need better representation in the NHL and start playing tennis so people know about Finland. It worked for Slovakia...


We absolutely do have a cultural divide. This is the main reason why I try hard not to share my opinions on how the US legal system should work. It's not my legal system, I don't know it very well, I do not understand its subject population. All I can offer is some international perspective to the culture-specific discussion, and a few facts to the rest.

That’s certainly reasonable.


Because I read the US Census data table on State on County size from 1990 wrong. I have no idea how I managed to fuck that up. Yeah, you've got the numbers right in your post. I think maybe I looked at the numbers for Arizona (barely below 300,000km^2) and somehow confused it with Texas? I consider 84% to be "slightly lower", so the population bit stands.
No biggie. I’ve just had too many café debates in Prague and Bratislava about just how small places are, I guess. :)


In that respect, yes, it's easier to pass a law here, easier to find a consensus on some matters -- on the other hand, it's practically impossible to try some other things in politics because of the same thing. I don't think the size of the population or the area the law affects or the number/size of racial/ethnic/religious groups has much bearing on the actual effects of banning/not banning firearms, however. If some of those ethnic or religious groups, or cross-minority culture in general, have a tendency for certain behavior concerning firearms, then that does affect how well the laws will work.

Whelp, also consider that Finland is also a typical Euro nation. Once you leave the capital, you have maybe a half dozen major cities/towns which have their own culture. Each has a history and culture linked to Helsinki, but slightly different. The towns around them tend to emulate that. The geography and common language ensures that most differences are relatively minor. Ditto Germany, Austria, Poland, etc. Russia is an exception, as is the US, Canada, Australia and Brazil -- all larger nations. Even France and England lack much diversity -- a Breton and a Parisian are not as different as (say) a Brooklynite (part of NYC) and a Texan.

Now consider the US. You have MANY cities with a population of more than a million. Each of these cities is DIFFERENT. Las Vegas, New Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston… all may as well be their own Euro capital. Sure, they’re all American cities, but geography (and their settlers/history!) makes the different. New Orleans has French overtones. Boston is English Colonial. San Francisco has a major Chinese influence, etc.
The laws will be different because of all of these factors. In the South and Western US, there are generally very few gun-control advocates. In more urban areas (LA, NYC), there are. In fact, if you have a license to carry a gun in New York STATE, you cannot carry in New York City.



That's a problem with US law then. The term "assault rifle" is very well defined in other usage.

Which is why there are such problems between the pro-gun control folks and those who are against it.


They are similar, but they most certainly are not the same consumer good. And really it's a moot point if you accept that "unsafe" items can be banned, no matter which group they belong to. There are obvious differences between a Mauser Gewehr 98 and an AK-47, you simply do not agree with people who think those differences are significant enough to base laws on.

Exactly... I don't agree that they're not the same good. Is an SUV not an automobile?

If an individual car/gun/dog food batch is unsafe, get rid of it. But there’s no reason (IMHO) to bad that car/gun/dog food make or type unless it has a genuine failing attribute. For example, the Pacer car that kept blowing up in the 70s.


[Emphasis mine]Now you've done it. If arguing for laws that differentiate between revolvers and automatic pistols is not a "technology argument", then neither does arguing for laws differentiating between semi-automatic vs fully automatic rifles have to be. The technological difference between the latter two is much smaller than that between the former, and they are still just two ways of doing the same thing.

Both pistols eject the same projectile. I put the same .45ACP rounds into my Springfield M1911 and my Taurus revolver. I can dig with either shovel. That's why I would consider a wheellock or a musket (older technology) and something beyond now (laser? caseless ammo? as newer technology). I don't differentiate between revolvers & automatic pistols, tires & tracks, laptop & desktop PCs. A walkman and an iPod, however, are different, as they use different media. Both play music, but are as far apart from each other as the walkman is to a record player. And the record player to the phonograph. And the phonograph to the player piano... well, you get the idea.


As for the tracked vehicle example, it again goes back to my quote at the beginning of this post. It is as much a technological argument as differentiating between automatic and non-automatic weaponry, it is just enforced in different ways at different levels.

Ah, but tracks and tires are *concurrent* technologies, just like revolvers & automatic pistols. Tracks have been around since the 1880s, tires (modern, not wooden wagon wheels) came around at about the same time.
The fact that “newer” weapons are more advanced is no reason to ban them, thus why I consider that a "technological" arguement.


It could be the potential buyer would be considered incapable to understand the effects of his actions. He might even fill the requirements of being clinically insane, but he just hasn't been psychologically "tested" ever. I'm sure some would argue it would be better not to allow such people to own weapons, because of much the same reasons why it's unlikely kids under 10 years of age will be allowed legal ownership of firearms, regardless of whether they can pass handling and theoretical exams.

I agree. But let’s do it with driver’s licenses and when they turn of legal drinking age, as alcohol is very bad for the insane. How about college? I knew several people where the stress drove them to suicide. And one that was arrested for threatening a professor for weeks.


The item discussed was a cruise missile. Last I checked, those weren't being sold at street corners. The same goes for shoulder-fired SAMs and ATGMs in most of the civilized world. It is theoretically possible to get your hands on them, but it's extremely difficult, and you are very likely to get caught doing it. That sort of thing does slightly hamper the plans of terrorists (or just plain madmen).



I'm sure nobody would waste a perfectly good Stinger at a car... In any case, this is why I used terrorists (who don't have much fear of what happens afterwards) as an example. The other aspect is that it would likely become much easier to illegally acquire such weapons if they were legalized, and thus criminal use of them would increase.
Depends who is in the car, no? :D
And in my mind that still doesn’t mean that if a citizen wanted one that he shouldn’t be able to possess one.

Maybe. But by the same token, that's an easy arguement to banning almost anything. :(

Further, if we take that as true... then drugs should never be legalized or else the US (or Finland?) would turn into another Holland. Is it so very bad in Holland? Should we outright ban cigarettes? IMHO, it's a dangerous arguement.


And, again, it goes back to where, if anywhere, you draw the line I discuss in the quote at the top of this post. This is truly arbitrary. No simple, foolproof reasoning can be given for that choice. It is much like the discussions on whether it's morally justifiable to sacrifice one to save 2, 100, a million, any number.
Exactly right.
As far as I’m concerned, we’ve just been debating point of view the whole time anyway. I’m very happy we’ve had a civil debate though – unlike some of what’s going on here. :)

There are but two products on the market, that I know of, that, when used as directed, kills people. One is cigarettes. The other is guns.

How about oxygen, talk about paradox. You need it to live but assuming you didn't die from anything else it'll end up giving you shit like cancer and killing you. Actually if guns killed people at the rate that cars did this country would be in really really deep shit. And don't forget alcohol. How many crimes could that be linked to. I find people who smoke cigarettes to be just plain stupid and that's all there is to it. They shouldn't be able to smoke in public buildings, but private shouldn't be legislated as non-smoking areas.

I can't believe that anyone would post anything this stupid and hurtful.

The ONLY person here with a real valid reason to own (as you and your associates claim as a necessary freedom), since it is based on a person experience with harm - rather than a testoserone fueled need for 'things that kill'... and you would DENY that person access.

Freedom? Hypocrite.
What's this all about? I feel like I just walked into a theatre in the middle of a drama and need a few clues to catch up!

Who says it NEEDS fixing? Just because MY perceptions don't conform to YOUR reality, or your convenience doesn't mean MY perceptions are any less valid.

Your perceptions go completely against the constitution and the premise that citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

You probably want to attack OTHERS with your Second amendment rights. Why else would you so vigorously defend them?

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

The second amendment is there for a reason, and if we do not defend it now, things could get, messy, later on.

You probably want to attack OTHERS with your Second amendment rights. Why else would you so vigorously defend them?


I vigorously defend my right to defend myself BECAUSE I WANT TO DEFEND MYSELF. Wow, you really can't see that?


Screw it. you're a gun nut, nothing I do or say will make a shred of difference to you, you care only for yourself, and not for anyone else, so fuck it, welcome to my ignore list. I have had it with you.

Whee ha.

Taking a test that would prevent maniacs from owning weapons is too much trouble for you? You don't see why you should be inconvenienced, and you are willing to put your 'comfort' above the potential safety of every other individual in the nation.


Because it's not for their safety, it's so the government can enact yet more controls on the populace.


Why? How much death do you need? Is the new generation of deer bullet-proof? Are those pesky Mexicans that were discussed earlier, coming across the border in Armoured Personnel Carriers now?


I would prefer to have no death. But I'm not going to sit back and not defend myself either.


The 'original' government was tribal chiefs.


Sorry, the original United States government.


Not at all - I would like to see controls one WHO can purchase firearms... and only a fairly minimal control, at that. Just a basic test to weed out the psycho-element.... which you don't want to take....


I don't think anyone should have to take it, so Mr. Ashcroft (or whomever takes his place) has a list of who to kill first.


Yes... it IS pre-emptive. It's hard to PREVENT bullets from killing people AFTER they have been fired... much easier to stop dangerous elements from owning weapons to start with.

Much easier to control others by using emotional, fearful reasoning.

I have 3 1911's of diffrent makes, which is why I wouldn't specifically recommend them for home use. I would go with a revolver. A semi auto could jam, and there's the question of what if your spouse needs to use it.
I'd have to differ here. A glock is almost as foolproof as a revolver and it shoots faster. If he gets a glock in the .40 S&W or the .45 ACP it would be best. I do know that with over 2000 rounds fired, my dad's glock has never jammed.

So - your response to someone else's real pain and real concern, is to mock, insult and bully them...

I think I have worked out why you are so obsessed with weapons, and so reluctant to be tested for 'suitability'.

Oh, yes, side with the "victim" who won't do anything (percieved, since she hasn't said anything to the contrary) to rectify the gaping wound in her psyche.

Obsessed with my 2nd amendment rights, yes, but there are a great many that know more about firearms than I do.

Suitability. Yes, I want you judging me. Just because you're scared doesn't give you the right to interrogate everyone.

What's this all about? I feel like I just walked into a theatre in the middle of a drama and need a few clues to catch up!

You just missed out on Kecibukia (spell?) and Zaxon showing the rest of the world where the gun lobbyists get their reputations for maturity and compassion....

I can't believe that anyone would post anything this stupid and hurtful.

The ONLY person here with a real valid reason to own (as you and your associates claim as a necessary freedom), since it is based on a person experience with harm - rather than a testoserone fueled need for 'things that kill'... and you would DENY that person access.

Freedom? Hypocrite.

Actually, he was pointing out the extremely flawed logic she was using.

And she actually has more of a chance of breaking down/flying off the handle than those of us who haven't had to experience violent murder.

It wasn't a hurtful post at all. She was using crappy logic, it was pointed in her direction, and suddenly it's wrong--but only after it was used on a "victim".

Grow up.

Oh, and repress? Not likely.

So - if someone debates politics with you, it is okay to attack them.


I have no problems with debates. Ones with facts and proof. Not over-emotionalized trauma.


THAT is why there should be tests for people to be allowed guns.


Yeah, just keep trying to control everyone....


No surprise. You should have learned the lesson, maybe.

What lesson? That there are those out there that refuse to use logic and reason to debate their side, and instead use emotional rhetoric? I learned that one long ago.

Oh, yes, side with the "victim" who won't do anything (percieved, since she hasn't said anything to the contrary) to rectify the gaping wound in her psyche.

Obsessed with my 2nd amendment rights, yes, but there are a great many that know more about firearms than I do.

Suitability. Yes, I want you judging me. Just because you're scared doesn't give you the right to interrogate everyone.

I wonder what this demonstrates.... every comment must be a conflict, every suggestion is part of conspiracy, and every action targets you....

Do you think the FBI watch you through your TV set?

Did I say I was scared? Are you leaping to (yet another) conclusion?

Did I say I wanted to interrogate you? Did I say I wanted ANYONE to interrogate you?

My conception was a basic psychological examination - to weed out the crazies - before gun ownership was permitted... how does that equate to an interrogation?

And, yes - I am sympathetic to someone who has experienced an ACTUAL instance of threat to life, since that person at least has a rational explanation for why they might need a gun.

Sorry, which nation do you live in?

I thought you said america... but now you are talking about socialism....

I am in the US. And the country is slowly turning to socialism. More money for government programs and such. Laws meant to control social interaction. That sort of thing.

And, yes - I am sympathetic to someone who has experienced an ACTUAL instance of threat to life, since that person at least has a rational explanation for why they might need a gun.
Hmmm. So you advise that we wait until someone actually threatens us before we buy a gun?

Actually, he was pointing out the extremely flawed logic she was using.

And she actually has more of a chance of breaking down/flying off the handle than those of us who haven't had to experience violent murder.

It wasn't a hurtful post at all. She was using crappy logic, it was pointed in her direction, and suddenly it's wrong--but only after it was used on a "victim".

By denying her the equal right to weapons that you collectively wish to be allowed?

You have no idea if she is more likely to fly off the handle than you are... and neither does anyone else... because their is no screening. If she had to undertake a basic psych test, and so did you, then you might have some basis for that claim. At the moment, though, it is just self-serving propoganda.

It was a hurtful post... perceived by me - and I am not even the person it was posted to. I did toy with the idea of reporting it for moderation, but settled for pointing out how offensive and immature it was within the thread.

I do find myself wondering (and you may well take this as an insult) if you are actually old enough to own a gun yet?

What I find comical is the people over on the Democratic Underground who hate guns, who suddenly think the 2nd Amendment is a good idea, at least if it allows them to resist the government.

Hearing them talk, and change their minds is really, really funny stuff.

I wonder what this demonstrates.... every comment must be a conflict, every suggestion is part of conspiracy, and every action targets you....


No, actually that was Bucksnort's gig, remember? She doesn't trust anyone and everyone is guilty until proven innocent....


Do you think the FBI watch you through your TV set?


Nope. Your computer--oh wait, that's the NSA.


Did I say I wanted to interrogate you? Did I say I wanted ANYONE to interrogate you?

My conception was a basic psychological examination - to weed out the crazies - before gun ownership was permitted... how does that equate to an interrogation?


in•ter•ro•gate
Pronunciation: (in-ter'u-gAt"), [key]
—v., -gat•ed, -gat•ing.
—v.t.
1. to ask questions of (a person), sometimes to seek answers or information that the person questioned considers personal or secret.

Yup, that was the right word.


And, yes - I am sympathetic to someone who has experienced an ACTUAL instance of threat to life, since that person at least has a rational explanation for why they might need a gun.

I don't believe that Bucksnort was actually there. So, unless I missed something, which is possible--there were a lot of posts (or something wasn't relayed), she never had the threat to life.

... their is no screening.
There most assuredly is screening! I know of no State which does not require a criminal background check before an individual can purchase a weapon, and States such as North Carolina requrie a course in gun safety, laws relating to gun ownership and use, and minimal levels of accuracy as demonstrated against static targets, before a concealed carry permit will be issued.

You have a habit of tossing wild allegations at others before bothering to check your facts.

I am in the US. And the country is slowly turning to socialism. More money for government programs and such. Laws meant to control social interaction. That sort of thing.

Yes. America is turning into a socialism... in the same way that China is an ultra-liberal capitalism.

You do realise that the left-wing of American government would be considered conservative almost anywhere else in the world?

You don't actually know what "socialism" is, do you?

By denying her the equal right to weapons that you collectively wish to be allowed?


Note, in a later post I said as much as I'd like to do that, we legally couldn't due to the 2nd amendment. Read all the posts...


You have no idea if she is more likely to fly off the handle than you are... and neither does anyone else... because their is no screening. If she had to undertake a basic psych test, and so did you, then you might have some basis for that claim. At the moment, though, it is just self-serving propoganda.


Like I said--her viewpoint and logic was being used against her. It was irrational and the example was supposed to illustrate that. You just assumed it was an actual attack--and I suppose it was, but it was with her own thought process.


It was a hurtful post... perceived by me - and I am not even the person it was posted to. I did toy with the idea of reporting it for moderation, but settled for pointing out how offensive and immature it was within the thread.


When others (IE more than just one--me) can see that someone has an issue to talk to a counselor about, that's not abuse. That's advice.


I do find myself wondering (and you may well take this as an insult) if you are actually old enough to own a gun yet?

There's a good chance I'm older than you. And I'm pretty sure the feds would have caught up with me, given the number of legal firearms I actually own.

By denying her the equal right to weapons that you collectively wish to be allowed?

You have no idea if she is more likely to fly off the handle than you are... and neither does anyone else... because their is no screening. If she had to undertake a basic psych test, and so did you, then you might have some basis for that claim. At the moment, though, it is just self-serving propoganda.

It was a hurtful post... perceived by me - and I am not even the person it was posted to. I did toy with the idea of reporting it for moderation, but settled for pointing out how offensive and immature it was within the thread.

I do find myself wondering (and you may well take this as an insult) if you are actually old enough to own a gun yet?
If by immature you mean startling insight into the way her thought processes seem to work, given her posts in this thread, and then blatantly using her own logic against her than yes it was immature. I will, however, that the post was hurtful, at least to her. If it served to shock her into thinking along a different path rather then the deep carven rut she seems to be in I would deem it worth the hurtfulness.

Yes. America is turning into a socialism... in the same way that China is an ultra-liberal capitalism.

You do realise that the left-wing of American government would be considered conservative almost anywhere else in the world?

You don't actually know what "socialism" is, do you?

As a defender of the ideals of the US constitution, yes, I know what socialism is. And we are on the path to it.

I'd have to differ here. A glock is almost as foolproof as a revolver and it shoots faster. If he gets a glock in the .40 S&W or the .45 ACP it would be best. I do know that with over 2000 rounds fired, my dad's glock has never jammed.

Sorry, but there's always a first time. And I'm not a fan of the Glock, so you're bringing that argument to the wrong guy.

2000 rounds is just starting to break in a good 1911, and I think 10-12,000 rounds is the service life of a Glock (don't quote me on that though). Also, a Glock is still a semi-auto, which means it could jam, and that the amount of training to become proficient with it is much higher than with a revolver. Almost as good doesn't cut it when the fur is flying.

I have no problems with debates. Ones with facts and proof. Not over-emotionalized trauma.


You have no problem with debates... one might argue that that is because you have yet to 'actually' join one.


What lesson? That there are those out there that refuse to use logic and reason to debate their side, and instead use emotional rhetoric? I learned that one long ago.

Do you see the irony? Panic over second amendment infringement, the allegations of conspiracy by the 'left', and the socialist agenda... that's all emotion.

Logic would dictate that, in order to use a tool that is potentially hazardous, one should be trained, and tested.

What you are throwing back is your emotional response to the perceived threat of a limitation of a 'right'.

Which is, of course, only a 'right' until it is Amended or removed... and the current Conservative regime is happy to Amend the constitution on much LESS life-threatening platforms...

Federal law requires a NICS check before the purchase of a handgun or firearm. If the purchaser has a prior felony conviction, or prior domestic violence conviction, or a current protective/restraining order against them, they are not allowed to buy the weapon.

To get a carry permit in states that allow it, it's usually another background check, a fee, and a certificate that you had training in concealed carry.

To get a hunting license, you have to take a hunter's safety course.

To buy a fully automatic machinegun or suppressor, you have to pay for a tax stamp, get investigated by the FBI, get approval from your local law enforcement, and pay through the nose for it. You'll also give up your right to search and seizure - the BATF will have permission to visit you at any time (even if you're not there and have no idea they're coming) to see if the item in question is still there.

To date, no one has committed a violent crime with a legally registered machinegun or silencer/suppressor. And that's since 1934.

Most crime guns are stolen, not purchased. Most of the "machineguns" that actually occupy a very, very small percentage of shootings are smuggled into the US along the same routes as drugs. Same thing for suppressors.

You could probably reduce or eliminate a significant percentage of gun violence in the US by legalizing drugs.

Which is, of course, only a 'right' until it is Amended or removed... and the current Conservative regime is happy to Amend the constitution on much LESS life-threatening platforms...
Quit farking equating conservative with Republican. It's also highly debatable whether Georgie Boy ever thought that the FMA would have a snowflakes chance in hell of passing.

So we agree, then, (that if my train of thought that anything that does not directly infringe upon the liberty of others should be legal), that it should be fine to own anything so long as you pay your taxes or duties and keep current any license and/or ordinance required?No, not really. I can honestly say I would not be for legislation that would allow a civilian to own anything which does not directly infringe upon the liberty others by its mere existence. Mostly because this would, for example, allow the nukes. For any compromise solution, it completely depends on the society in question. I believe gun control in Finland is a good thing, although some of the fall-out is rather weird -- for example, the some Finnish police departments stopped issuing buckshot for their shotguns because some idiot thought it is "too lethal", as if that was somehow bad in a weapon that's supposed to kill. I will still not offer my exact opinion on gun control in the US because I feel it is of no worth.

Sure, you may be able to shoot down an aircraft with the first. You may be able to sail from Cuba to Florida in a packing crate, too. But that does not make the packing crate (sea worthy though it is!) a ship. :)Hardly a valid comparison. The shoulder-fired Stinger RMP Block II should have about a 60% chance of hitting an incoming, fast, low-flying aircraft. The chances of hitting a lumbering 747 as it's either preparing to land or is just taking off should be significantly better, and a 747 is not exactly designed to fly well with a wing ripped off. I challenge you to get that rate of success with sailing a packing crate from Cuba to Florida.

In any case, the definition of SAM doesn't require it to be an extremely effective weapon. The Chauchat is ultracrappy, but it is nevertheless a machine gun.

I don't agree that they're not the same good. Is an SUV not an automobile?Sure it is. But it is a separate class of automobile from, say, sedans. In Finland, you need a separate driving license to be allowed to drive cars that weigh over 3,500kg, and yet another to drive buses -- which are all forms of automobiles, some simply are more strictly controlled. Such legislation works wonderfully and is very rational, which again goes to prove that there can be good reasons to differentiate between rather similar technologies in law and such laws can function well. I think such laws exist in most of the western world. (?)

Toyota Sequoia and Nissan Pathfinder are Japanese 4WD SUVs. Add the M-B M-Class, and you've got just 4WD SUVs. Add Dodge/Chrysler Neon and you've got Cars. Add the M113 APC and you've got ICE Vehicles. Add a bicycle and and a train with an electric motor you've got just Vehicles. Etc etc. You might as well say it's unfair to take away guns but not hammers, because both are Metallic Personal Tools. For you, the group "firearms" might be a legally undivisible entity, but it is not for most people. It will be very hard for you to base your argument on this "technological argument" thing because of this.

The fact that “newer” weapons are more advanced is no reason to ban them, thus why I consider that a "technological" arguement.The usual logic behind banning fully automatic weapon has nothing to do with their "advanced technology". First, some bolt action weapons are much more technologically advanced than the majority of fully automatic weapons available -- the AMP DSR-1 (http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn38-e.htm) is still legal in Finland while a Maxim '08 machinegun is not. Second, the issue with fully automatic weaponry in particular is that the reason why they exist is to kill people effectively. Regardless of any secondary uses which might have popped up later, that's their point. The scientific worth of fully automatic firearms is at this point in time null. Fear of technology has, again, nothing to do with it.

Human societies have come to the conclusion that it is a good idea to limit the availability of killing tools (objects the primary purpose of which is to kill large animals/destroy property) where the legal use of the item does not offer a significant advantage over another item which is much more difficult to use in an illegal manner. You would like to try out an anarchistic utopia (dystopia?) where no such limitations exist, which is fine, but don't expect that to magically solve a lot of problems in the world. There are solid reasons why many of these limitations are in effect, and historically many of them (and currently almost none of them) have nothing to do with governments strengthening their grip on the people.

I agree. But let’s do it with driver’s licenses and when they turn of legal drinking age, as alcohol is very bad for the insane. How about college? I knew several people where the stress drove them to suicide. And one that was arrested for threatening a professor for weeks.Again, it's a matter of where do you want to draw the line. Many think the ownership of weaponry (and certainly heavy weaponry) is a greater responsibility than drinking. And, in a sense, many school systems do psychological screening already, in the form of interviews and recommendations.

Maybe. But by the same token, that's an easy arguement to banning almost anything. :(Most arguments related to guns, on either side, could be used for most other items. It's a matter of the threat posed to the society by the illegal use of such items, and how the society ranks the need to limit the illegal availability of the items vs. the need to legally own the items. Many feel the threat of illegal weapon use is a significant one, while the need to legally own weapons is less so. Again, depends heavily on society -- in Finland, for example, it is incredibly unlikely to be the victim of a serious crime of a physical nature perpetrated by someone who you are not very familiar with, and so the need for firearms for self defense is far smaller than in the US.

As far as I’m concerned, we’ve just been debating point of view the whole time anyway. I’m very happy we’ve had a civil debate though – unlike some of what’s going on here. :)Agreed, and likewise. The same can't be said for the whole of this thread, though.

If by immature you mean startling insight into the way her thought processes seem to work, given her posts in this thread, and then blatantly using her own logic against her than yes it was immature. I will, however, that the post was hurtful, at least to her. If it served to shock her into thinking along a different path rather then the deep carven rut she seems to be in I would deem it worth the hurtfulness.

Yeah, it was hurtful, and I'm not too proud of that. But I'm beginning to think it needed to be said by somebody. I'll take the hit for being the bad guy.

Agreed, and likewise. The same can't be said for the whole of this thread, though.

I didn't want to drag you into my trash heap--at least you two kept some part of this thread civil.

Do you see the irony? Panic over second amendment infringement, the allegations of conspiracy by the 'left', and the socialist agenda... that's all emotion.


Not really. With all the egalitarian laws that have been created since FDR's time, the US is becoming a socialist state.


Logic would dictate that, in order to use a tool that is potentially hazardous, one should be trained, and tested.


Who's laws of logic are you using? I'd really like to know.


What you are throwing back is your emotional response to the perceived threat of a limitation of a 'right'.


I threw back two things:
1) The flawed logic of a person who has a large emotional wound/scar
2) Advice to actually look up some gun numbers before spouting off about the topic.


Which is, of course, only a 'right' until it is Amended or removed... and the current Conservative regime is happy to Amend the constitution on much LESS life-threatening platforms...

Hey, I'm not happy about Georgie boy being in office either.

I'd have to differ here. A glock is almost as foolproof as a revolver and it shoots faster. If he gets a glock in the .40 S&W or the .45 ACP it would be best. I do know that with over 2000 rounds fired, my dad's glock has never jammed.

I personally don't like the Glock. I don't like the feel, I don't like loading it, and I don't like shooting it. I'll take most any revolver over it.
(Note: Also, shooting in "Weaver" it somehow dumped *several* rounds down my shirt!!)

I also find jamming to be more a problem with the clip than with the gun. My Springfield's original clips (even after 1000 rounds) still jam on occasion, but not the after markets I picked up...

What really eats my lunch is this idea that some of these gun control advocates have, that somehow one magical solution is to administer a psych test.

1)No test is required to exercise any of my other Constitutional Rights.
2)A history of mental illness ALREADY will cause a background check to come back with a flag on it. This is true for the Federal form as well as the State of Maryland form. (I've completed both forms on multiple occasions)
3)No liscence is requirted to exercise any of my other Constitutional Rights.

One might be temped to ask, "Why shouldn't you get a test and a liscence? Owning a gun is a far cry from just being able to say what you want or demand a jury trial!"

The answer is that when you alow Government to start getting involved in decising who is sane enough, or competent enouh to own weapons, you negate the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

You see, the Bill of Rights is a list of rules to keep the Government in check. It was written by men who saw what happens when you don't hold back Government power. They weren't being prideful or paranoid. They were speaking from personal experience.

Is there a downside? Maybe. Maybe there would be people owning weapons they might otherwise be better off not having... But overall I feel more safety would be gained by allowing honest citizens to be able to defend themselves against predators, than by limiting their ability just because a tiny percentage of the people might be unfit to have a gun.

Hmmm. So you advise that we wait until someone actually threatens us before we buy a gun?

Not at all. But the person in question has an actual experience that makes her feel the necessity for a firearm, rather than just some general attraction to implements of death, which seems to be typified in some of the pro-gun debaters.

I personally don't like the Glock. I don't like the feel, I don't like loading it, and I don't like shooting it. I'll take most any revolver over it.
(Note: Also, shooting in "Weaver" it somehow dumped *several* rounds down my shirt!!)

I also find jamming to be more a problem with the clip than with the gun. My Springfield's original clips (even after 1000 rounds) still jam on occasion, but not the after markets I picked up...

My Colt is okay but the main problem with 1911s of any make is that they are notoriously picky about what kind of ammo they'll work with, and you have to be sure to get good quality clips.

I've tried the Winchester made flatfront rounds... Not the cylindrical target shooting ones, I mean the ones where the tip is vaguely trapezoid shaped... My 1911 jammed something terrible. Never again. Also, I had picked up a couple bargain price 7 round clips from a show and they were utterly miserable. One of them even kept getting stuck in the gun because the plate would jump over the slide release lever inside.

So now it's all high quality clips and standard FMJ ball ammo.

In the end the argument of pro-gun/anti-gun reminds me of the difference between cape buffalo and water buffalo. The water buffalo's answer to a threat is to run away until it has already been brought down and only then begin to fight while the cape buffalo's answer is to rip apart the predator if it can. It may even collect it's whole herd to stampede the predators if it has enough warning.

Not a precise analogy. With a belt-fed machinegun, there are instances in history where a single man with a single gun killed over 700 people in a few minutes, and wounded again nearly that number.

Better than a Cape Buffalo could do.

Quit farking equating conservative with Republican. It's also highly debatable whether Georgie Boy ever thought that the FMA would have a snowflakes chance in hell of passing.

I can't say I'm sorry to make the connection - because I have no input...

The Republican party is a conservative party - and not a moderate conservative party, either.

It always confuses me when people claim to be libertarians (for example), or to espouse freedom, and then discuss socialism like it is anathema to libertarianism, and, to compound it, advocate the Republican Party.

Thus - if you want to vote ultra-conservative, you vote Republican.

If you don't like that, there's not much I can do about it... you'll just have to elarn to live with it.

Not at all. But the person in question has an actual experience that makes her feel the necessity for a firearm, rather than just some general attraction to implements of death, which seems to be typified in some of the pro-gun debaters.

I'd like to see an example of this. All of the pro gun debaters I've seen, including myself, advocate gun ownership either as a sport or for self defense.

Do I want to ever kill someone with my .45? Absolutely not. In my thinkng I hope and pray that just letting an intruder see that I'm armed will be enough to either make him run away or surrender on the spot.

I can't imagine having to live with knowing that I have taken another human life for any reason. It's a hard thing to live with. There would be feelings of guilt, feelings of self doubt perhaps... But the alternative is worse.

How could I live with myself knowing that my family was brutalized or killed when there was more perhaps I could have done to prevent it?

I once saw a bumber sticker that summarized this point well. Quoting to the best of my memory:

"Gun Control is the idea that a woman beaten, raped and bleeding in an alley is somehow morally superior to that same woman explaining to a Police officer why she shot her assailant."

... Please note the word "reminds".

Not a precise analogy. With a belt-fed machinegun, there are instances in history where a single man with a single gun killed over 700 people in a few minutes, and wounded again nearly that number.

Better than a Cape Buffalo could do.

It would only take one person with good marksmanship and a pistol to stop him. Now imagine if even half of those 700 victims were armed.

(I refer to a hypothetical situation of terrorism in a city or something. My point obviously doesn't apply if you refer to a war.)

My Colt is okay but the main problem with 1911s of any make is that they are notoriously picky about what kind of ammo they'll work with, and you have to be sure to get good quality clips.

I've tried the Winchester made flatfront rounds... Not the cylindrical target shooting ones, I mean the ones where the tip is vaguely trapezoid shaped... My 1911 jammed something terrible. Never again. Also, I had picked up a couple bargain price 7 round clips from a show and they were utterly miserable. One of them even kept getting stuck in the gun because the plate would jump over the slide release lever inside.

So now it's all high quality clips and standard FMJ ball ammo.

I found that a good ramp job will help some of the jamming problems.

I once saw a bumber sticker that summarized this point well. Quoting to the best of my memory:

"Gun Control is the idea that a woman beaten, raped and bleeding in an alley is somehow morally superior to that same woman explaining to a Police officer why she shot her assailant."
That and there's the one that goes like this: Gun control - The idea that a woman raped and strangled with her panties is somehow morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

One point I'd like to make real quick before I head off for the day...

Recently the area I live in was terrorized by a pair of criminals with a rifle. They went around and shit a number of people, killing most of them, before they were caught.

I pointed out that I wished I could carry my .45 with me when I went out.

My wife pointed out that the .45 would be useless in defending myself because the sniper would get me before I could react, and that a pistol is a poor defense against a rifle with a scope.

Good point...

But I replied by saying that my carrying a pistol may not be able to save me, but under the right circumstances maybe, just maybe, it might be able to save someone else.

Not a precise analogy. With a belt-fed machinegun, there are instances in history where a single man with a single gun killed over 700 people in a few minutes, and wounded again nearly that number.

Better than a Cape Buffalo could do.

Yeah, but that was WW1, we don't exactly use trench warfare anymore. And generally it takes two people to operate a belt fed weapon.

If you asked me, I think the whole Title III license and corporate ownership rules are just for keeping machine guns out of the hands of idiots and poor people, because in reality, it only takes about $1000 and a bunch of paperwork to get a Title III, and just a whole bunch more $$ to get the weapons.

That and there's the one that goes like this: Gun control - The idea that a woman raped and strangled with her panties is somehow morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

That was probably the same one and my memory is just butchering it.

There most assuredly is screening! I know of no State which does not require a criminal background check before an individual can purchase a weapon, and States such as North Carolina requrie a course in gun safety, laws relating to gun ownership and use, and minimal levels of accuracy as demonstrated against static targets, before a concealed carry permit will be issued.

You have a habit of tossing wild allegations at others before bothering to check your facts.

Hmmm, taking the last four words of a post, in a chain of posts... interesting.

We were talking about psychological screening (Well, I was... my erstwhile opponents were bucking wildly against such an idea) - which, as far as I know, is only ever an issue in as much as a HISTORY of mental illness can be a factor.

I think that permitting and training should be mandatory - and I'm glad to see that you were required to attend them.

I also think that preliminary psychological screening should be carried out - regardless of whether a history of psychological disturbance is known. Now, some of the more conservative have argued that that is the same as assuming guilt until proven innocent - but, I would argue it's more a matter of 'why put a potential for harm into the hands of an unknown quantity'?

You, for example - put forth good arguments, and I might be swayed that you would be a safe person to be armed.... but it's just my guess. And, if I'm wrong, and you shoot up a school, the inevitable question will come up, "wasn't there any way we could have known"?

I contend that it would be better to do a little mandatory evaluation, than risk avoidable deaths.

The Republican party is a conservative party - and not a moderate conservative party, either.
It always confuses me when people claim to be libertarians (for example), or to espouse freedom, and then discuss socialism like it is anathema to libertarianism, and, to compound it, advocate the Republican Party.
Thus - if you want to vote ultra-conservative, you vote Republican

Nope. If you were really 'conservative' about government you'd vote Libertarian, but if you're going to be a 'moral conservative' and try to tell the rest of us how not to have any fun or freedom, then you vote Republican.

I can't say I'm sorry to make the connection - because I have no input...

The Republican party is a conservative party - and not a moderate conservative party, either.

It always confuses me when people claim to be libertarians (for example), or to espouse freedom, and then discuss socialism like it is anathema to libertarianism, and, to compound it, advocate the Republican Party.

Thus - if you want to vote ultra-conservative, you vote Republican.

If you don't like that, there's not much I can do about it... you'll just have to elarn to live with it.
See, the problem here is that you equate socialism with liberty and freedom. It is nothing of the sort. Instead it is a base form of authoritarianism. the exact opposite on the political spectrum of libertarianism.

I'd like to see an example of this. All of the pro gun debaters I've seen, including myself, advocate gun ownership either as a sport or for self defense.

Do I want to ever kill someone with my .45? Absolutely not. In my thinkng I hope and pray that just letting an intruder see that I'm armed will be enough to either make him run away or surrender on the spot.

I can't imagine having to live with knowing that I have taken another human life for any reason. It's a hard thing to live with. There would be feelings of guilt, feelings of self doubt perhaps... But the alternative is worse.

How could I live with myself knowing that my family was brutalized or killed when there was more perhaps I could have done to prevent it?

I once saw a bumber sticker that summarized this point well. Quoting to the best of my memory:

"Gun Control is the idea that a woman beaten, raped and bleeding in an alley is somehow morally superior to that same woman explaining to a Police officer why she shot her assailant."

I know the bumper sticker you mean. Let me restate - I am not anti-gun. My sister-in-law can concealed carry, and I want my wife to get the same licensing.

I also whole-heartedly support concepts of target-shooting, hunting etc.

Have you not noticed people in this very thread debating the reasons why they 'need' an M16 (or whatever), and comparing sword collections, etc... does it not concern you that a guy in an appartment building (with no easy access to hunt or sport-shooting) is not content with a gun for him (and maybe for his wife), but squirrels away a collection of automatic weaponry? How much 'self-defence' does the guy in 14A need?

My point is, not everyone is motivated by entirely pure motives. And, as it stands, our major deciding factors are price, and a clean criminal record.

Some argue for strict gun-control... and I can see WHY they make those arguments.

Some argue for no gun-control... and I can see why THEY make THOSE arguments.

I'm fairly happy with the status quo, but, if I could change the system, the one thing I would add would be an on-the-spot BASIC psychological evaluation. It would potentially discourage some crazies, and might prevent weapons falling into the hands of potentially dangerous individuals - but, for the vast majority of gun-owners, would be little more than an inconvenience of a few minutes.... which seems like a small niggle when buying a weapon, and a small price for an increase (even incremental) in collective safety.

My Colt is okay but the main problem with 1911s of any make is that they are notoriously picky about what kind of ammo they'll work with, and you have to be sure to get good quality clips.

I've tried the Winchester made flatfront rounds... Not the cylindrical target shooting ones, I mean the ones where the tip is vaguely trapezoid shaped... My 1911 jammed something terrible. Never again. Also, I had picked up a couple bargain price 7 round clips from a show and they were utterly miserable. One of them even kept getting stuck in the gun because the plate would jump over the slide release lever inside.

So now it's all high quality clips and standard FMJ ball ammo.

For the range, I'm running Sellier & Belloit (Czech made) FMJ .45 with a variety of clips. Generally good, though I don't carry with S&B as I do get some jamming -- maybe 3 rounds in 100. I'll never run Wolf -- awful!!

See, the problem here is that you equate socialism with liberty and freedom. It is nothing of the sort. Instead it is a base form of authoritarianism. the exact opposite on the political spectrum of libertarianism.

Not at all. Socialism is about giving the means and structure of production and distribution to the work force - with all members of the community sharing in the work and the goods produced.

Socialism is not a 'political' model at all, but far too many people are ignorant of that fact.

Socialism exists in a very few societies, in a pure form - one being the collective farms or Israel, and all the rest being 'states' like Kristiania, an anarchist state.

In fact, socialism is the ONLY workable production model that CAN truly interface with a libertarian or anarchistic community.

Don't be pulled into Cold-War 'red menace' hyperbole. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

Note, in a later post I said as much as I'd like to do that, we legally couldn't due to the 2nd amendment. Read all the posts...


You are admitting, though, that BUT FOR the 2nd Amendment, you would happily deprive her of the freedom you demand. I read all your posts - and that is why I think you are hypocritical.


Like I said--her viewpoint and logic was being used against her. It was irrational and the example was supposed to illustrate that. You just assumed it was an actual attack--and I suppose it was, but it was with her own thought process.


You state it as an attack, it is taken as an attack.

You shoot someone in the head deliberately, they are probably dead.
You shoot someone in the head accidentally, they are still probably dead.

Sometimes, it isn't about how things are intended, it is how they are received.


When others (IE more than just one--me) can see that someone has an issue to talk to a counselor about, that's not abuse. That's advice.


So, if a group of people decide someone else has a problem, and they decide to 'explain that problem' (in confrontational terms) to that person, they are carrying out some kind of social-conscience exercise?

I seem to recall the Klan used a similar kind of logic...


There's a good chance I'm older than you. And I'm pretty sure the feds would have caught up with me, given the number of legal firearms I actually own.

Maybe you are... or maybe you aren't. I hate to say it, but you have yet to debate like someone more mature than I.

Why would the 'feds' have caught up?

Not at all. Socialism is about giving the means and structure of production and distribution to the work force - with all members of the community sharing in the work and the goods produced.

Socialism is not a 'political' model at all, but far too many people are ignorant of that fact.

Socialism exists in a very few societies, in a pure form - one being the collective farms or Israel, and all the rest being 'states' like Kristiania, an anarchist state.

In fact, socialism is the ONLY workable production model that CAN truly interface with a libertarian or anarchistic community.

Don't be pulled into Cold-War 'red menace' hyperbole. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
Ah, well, in referencing Socialism I use countries like sayy, france as my basis for whether it works. Considering France and Germany need 300 million new immigrants by the year 2050 to keep their welfare states propped up I assume it doesn't work.

Ah, well, in referencing Socialism I use countries like sayy, france as my basis for whether it works. Considering France and Germany need 300 million new immigrants by the year 2050 to keep their welfare states propped up I assume it doesn't work.

France isn't a true socialist state - just because your party is called 'socialist' doesn't make you a socialist. They have SOME socialist tendency, but they are far from a pure 'socialism'.

While we are looking at those figures, though, how do you think the US stacks up against that? Especially in light of Bush's slight overspend.

The only thing to hamper socialism is a corrupt government model - which is the chief reason it couldn't work in America at the moment - the political model is too beholden to corporate interest.

Ah, well, in referencing Socialism I use countries like sayy, france as my basis for whether it works. Considering France and Germany need 300 million new immigrants by the year 2050 to keep their welfare states propped up I assume it doesn't work.Practically the whole of Western, Northern, Central, and large parts of Southern and Eastern Europe embrace the ideals of social democracy to at least some extent, and this has been the case since at least WW2. Curiously, the economies of Europe are not systematically collapsing.

To everyone talking about firing FMJs out of their Colt M1911s: You aren't planning on using that for self defense, are you?

I really want to see this thread die, every time I read the title it pisses me off.

LET IT BE SAID: "I am a liberal, and I want you to buy more guns! Or less, whatever you want."

To everyone talking about firing FMJs out of their Colt M1911s: You aren't planning on using that for self defense, are you?

Nah, PMC Starfires. Goes in like a .45, comes out like a dinner plate.

France isn't a true socialist state - just because your party is called 'socialist' doesn't make you a socialist. They have SOME socialist tendency, but they are far from a pure 'socialism'.

While we are looking at those figures, though, how do you think the US stacks up against that? Especially in light of Bush's slight overspend.

The only thing to hamper socialism is a corrupt government model - which is the chief reason it couldn't work in America at the moment - the political model is too beholden to corporate interest.
The larger the population, the harder for any "pure" political ideal to be successful. And didn't this start over someone complaining of the eurosocialist tendencies of the government. I don't think he limited it to a single party.

Practically the whole of Western, Northern, Central, and large parts of Southern and Eastern Europe embrace the ideals of social democracy to at least some extent, and this has been the case since at least WW2. Curiously, the economies of Europe are not systematically collapsing.

To everyone talking about firing FMJs out of their Colt M1911s: You aren't planning on using that for self defense, are you?
Needing a constant influx of immigrants to keep from collapsing outright is to me systematically collapsing. That's why SocSec here in the states doesn't work.

Practically the whole of Western, Northern, Central, and large parts of Southern and Eastern Europe embrace the ideals of social democracy to at least some extent, and this has been the case since at least WW2. Curiously, the economies of Europe are not systematically collapsing.

To everyone talking about firing FMJs out of their Colt M1911s: You aren't planning on using that for self defense, are you?

France and Germany *are* in deep trouble, if not collapsing... heck, western europe right now is worried to death about it's greying population! (Now, I admit the US economy has been sucking wind of late, too.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/3910821.stm


The Springfield M1911 (Micro Compact) is indeed my carry piece of choice, though my .45 Taurus revolver is a close second.

Needing a constant influx of immigrants to keep from collapsing outright is to me systematically collapsing.The Social Democratic Party has been the major party in the Finnish government for as long as I've lived, I'm pretty sure it was there for dozens of years straight before that. There is some talk about immigrants maybe being good for our society, but there is no threat of collapse. I haven't been following the immigrant debate of other European countries too closely, so I can only offer you Finland as proof that social democracy doesn't make economies collapse. In fact, it managed to achieve the opposite post-WW2.

The Springfield M1911 (Micro Compact) is indeed my carry piece of choice, though my .45 Taurus revolver is a close second.Loaded with FMJs? From a short barrel, bullets that expand too rapidly might be a bad idea with a .45 ACP, but you absolutely should go for at least some expansion. The ability to penetrate two to four human corpses with a single shot isn't of much use in most situations, but the difference between a 0.4" and a 0.6" wound channel might be.

Most liberals I know so not want to ban guns, rather place restrictions on them. I think that we SHOULD ban guns--among police, too! A gun's sole purpose is to kill. Why not ban guns and allow non-lethal weapons, instead? If police used tazer guns, they could still incapacitate a criminal, and not have to worry about shooting civilians. Besides, why do people WANT guns? A crazed killer isn't going to stop killing just because there are guns in the neighborhood or there might be a death penalty. That's not what they think about!

You are admitting, though, that BUT FOR the 2nd Amendment, you would happily deprive her of the freedom you demand. I read all your posts - and that is why I think you are hypocritical.


Because of the 1st amendment, I can feel anything I want. I'm not going to act upon those feelings because of the 2nd amendment. Not to mention my feelings about self-defense override any sort of potential fear of others owning firearms. I still practice what I preach.


You shoot someone in the head deliberately, they are probably dead.
You shoot someone in the head accidentally, they are still probably dead.
Sometimes, it isn't about how things are intended, it is how they are received.


Kinda like I'm going to strip you of your 2nd amendment rights for the good of the people?


So, if a group of people decide someone else has a problem, and they decide to 'explain that problem' (in confrontational terms) to that person, they are carrying out some kind of social-conscience exercise?
I seem to recall the Klan used a similar kind of logic...


And yet others call that an intervention.


Maybe you are... or maybe you aren't. I hate to say it, but you have yet to debate like someone more mature than I.


Your opinion of mature. I just don't pull punches in a PC-like fashion.


Why would the 'feds' have caught up?

Were there anything in my past that would warrant barring from firearms purchasing by current law, I have gone through enough federal background checks for the 14 guns I own, that they would have stopped me. That is what I meant.

Oh, hell with it.

Let's ban all guns. Let's ban all drugs that can be drank, smoked or shot. That includes caffine and alcohol. Let's ban sex as well, and sex should only happen when there is a need for procreation and only after genetic screenings have been completed. Cars should be banned as well, and we should only have public transportation and utilitarian bicycles. While we're at it, let's ban speach of any kind, just in case someone is offended. If it's even remotely entertaining or pleasureable, it should be banned immediately.

Jesus H., are the fun police on this board, or what?

I can't believe that anyone would post anything this stupid and hurtful.

The ONLY person here with a real valid reason to own (as you and your associates claim as a necessary freedom), since it is based on a person experience with harm - rather than a testoserone fueled need for 'things that kill'... and you would DENY that person access.

Freedom? Hypocrite.

This person assumes I'm going to go out and kill people, insults me, rants about how innefficient the police are and refuses to answer most of my questions all the while admitting she knows little about guns and that she would kill anyone on her property she percieves as hostile. She wants checks on people she "assumes" MAY be dangerous which she is, BY HER OWN DEFINITIONs AND ARGUEMENTS.

You say she is the "only" one w/ a valid reason? Have you met her? Have you met me? Do you know every detail of my life? No? Then Piss off.

Try reading her previous posts before you have to gall to call me a hypocrite. She started out by using vulgar language and attacking people who defend gun rights

I tried to be reasonable w/ her and she went off the handle.

Oh, hell with it.

Let's ban all guns. Let's ban all drugs that can be drank, smoked or shot. That includes caffine and alcohol. Let's ban sex as well, and sex should only happen when there is a need for procreation and only after genetic screenings have been completed. Cars should be banned as well, and we should only have public transportation and utilitarian bicycles. While we're at it, let's ban speach of any kind, just in case someone is offended. If it's even remotely entertaining or pleasureable, it should be banned immediately.

Jesus H., are the fun police on this board, or what?

Then we'd live in San Angeles in "Demolition Man", where all resteraunts are Taco Bell. :)

Then we'd live in San Angeles in "Demolition Man", where all resteraunts are Taco Bell. :)

Ya know...listening to some of these people makes me wonder if that's not what they're going for....

Ya know...listening to some of these people makes me wonder if that's not what they're going for....

No they just want to make us "safer" by ensuring only the "right" people can get guns.

because killing a human being with a gun is wrong

but killing a human being at an abortion clinic is okay :rolleyes:

thats a liberal's way of thinking

No they just want to make us "safer" by ensuring only the "right" people can get guns.
http://www.attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html :cool: