GUN CONTROL

[Sinfix_15]

Agree to disagree, as i dont believe this is anymore GOVT INTRUSION because the law already exists in regards to serial numbers and weapons.

Our own government sells guns to anyone who will pay for a gun. We're the leading exporter of weapons. We sell guns to people who want to use their guns to fight us................

based on some 2003 stats i located.
Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), United Arab Emirates ($110 million), and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

Often when im watching the news i say this "i wish they could do what theyre asking me to do"....... If the government wants to do these things.... YOU FIRST. Quit asking me to do things you will not do. They want me to sacrifice and pay more taxes to pay off the debt, i didnt put us in debt..... nobody skipped check on taxes, if you dont pay your taxes... we all know what happens. I dont have money problems..... when i drive past the chevy dealership and see that zr1 sitting out there, i know i cant afford it. I live in a house that suits my budget, drive cars that suit my budget, eat food that suits my budget.... and if i dont live within my means, i suffer the consequences. Why cant i ask my government to live within their means? You know what your revenue is, balance your budget. If the government did everything in their power to cut costs and reduce spending, then at the end of that process said "hey, we still need a little more", i would feel ok about paying more taxes.

I feel the same way about gun control. If you want to stop "back door" gun sells...... you first. I wont sell my glock to a stranger ive never met as soon as you stop selling guns by the ton to conflict nations. Your suggestion is reasonable, but i simply do not want the government involved anymore in my life than they already are. I volunteer to give them NOTHING.

[David88vert]

Actually, Vteckidd, on this one Sinfix understands it, and upi do not appear to. The ONLY thing that registration of all firearms does is give the government a list of firearms where they can confiscate them later. That is the whole point of a national gun registry. Driver licenses are not national, they are state maintained. A federal registration is not the same, and our founding father specifically warned that the federal government should not be in control of guns.

Georgia does not require the registration of firearms owned by citizens. Georgia law actually prohibits local city/county governments from registering firearms when applying for a firearms license. However dangerous weapons must be registered in compliance with the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 and Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968
Georgia has only 2 laws that regulate the purchasing of firearms. All other purchasing laws come from Federal law.

Government should be be afraid of the people, not the people be afraid of the government.

In the examples that I listed earlier, every single atrocity started with a federal registration to get a list, then a banning, followed by a seizure. None of these other nations believed that it could happen to them either, but it did. What makes you think that the US is any different, or special, compared to other nations that have been through this in the last 100 years?

As to the registering it like a used car - it already is. When a private individual sells a car to another private individual, they only sign a quick couple of documents - title, and BOS. There is no background check. You cannot place a requirement of a background check on private sales. The only alternative is to have all individuals get a registration card allowing them to purchase a firearm. Register the person, rahter than the weapon. That would be an infringment on the individual's rights from a legal perspective.

[Vteckidd]

Actually, Vteckidd, on this one Sinfix understands it, and upi do not appear to. The ONLY thing that registration of all firearms does is give the government a list of firearms where they can confiscate them later. That is the whole point of a national gun registry. Driver licenses are not national, they are state maintained. A federal registration is not the same, and our founding father specifically warned that the federal government should not be in control of guns.

Georgia does not require the registration of firearms owned by citizens. Georgia law actually prohibits local city/county governments from registering firearms when applying for a firearms license. However dangerous weapons must be registered in compliance with the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 and Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968
Georgia has only 2 laws that regulate the purchasing of firearms. All other purchasing laws come from Federal law.

Government should be be afraid of the people, not the people be afraid of the government.

In the examples that I listed earlier, every single atrocity started with a federal registration to get a list, then a banning, followed by a seizure. None of these other nations believed that it could happen to them either, but it did. What makes you think that the US is any different, or special, compared to other nations that have been through this in the last 100 years?

then you disagree with lawas already on the books correct? SO you have the same fear when you purchase a new weapon right?

Again, THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS, whats wrong with extending it to cover used weapons? IF YOU BuY A USED GUN, IT IS SERIALIZED, ATF KNOWS ABOUT IT. WHY SHOULDNT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN IT GETS SOLD AGAIN? All im asking for is CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

[David88vert]

then you disagree with lawas already on the books correct? SO you have the same fear when you purchase a new weapon right?

Again, THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS, whats wrong with extending it to cover used weapons? IF YOU BuY A USED GUN, IT IS SERIALIZED, ATF KNOWS ABOUT IT. WHY SHOULDNT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN IT GETS SOLD AGAIN? All im asking for is CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

Technically, we should not have existing registration laws for firearms.
Extending it will give a complete, comprehensive list, which is only advantageous to the government in regards to banning and seizure in the future. It serves no advantageous purpose for law-abiding citizens.

Chain of custody is a legal term in regards to law enforcement's evidence collection. It is not a term that should be used for the purchase and selling between private individuals. It does not exist for furniture, computers, tools, pianos, plumbing fixtures, etc - all of which can be used as weapons. Would you have every item purchased be tracked?

[Vteckidd]

Technically, we should not have existing registration laws for firearms.
Extending it will give a complete, comprehensive list, which is only advantageous to the government in regards to banning and seizure in the future. It serves no advantageous purpose for law-abiding citizens.

It absolves you of any wrongdoing should your used firearm you sold to a person who commits a crime. It proves to LEO instantly you no longer own it. It gives you a legal, provable chain of custody to a new owner. No different than a CAR. Imagine HIT AND RUN crimes if we didnt require existing laws to register your car.........

Chain of custody is a legal term in regards to law enforcement's evidence collection. It is not a term that should be used for the purchase and selling between private individuals. It does not exist for furniture, computers, tools, pianos, plumbing fixtures, etc - all of which can be used as weapons. Would you have every item purchased be tracked?

Cool strawman bro.

Was the thread changed to "items that could kill you that arent guns?" I dont think anyone rationally can make the argument that firearms should be treated differently as Furniture,Computers, Tools, Nailguns, etc.

First, none of the items you listed require the paperwork and background checks that firearms have. So the second part of your question is moot. No we shouldnt track items that we already DONT TRACK.

We track firearms, its already done, why not close a GIGANTIC LOOP HOLE in the private used gun market

[David88vert]

It absolves you of any wrongdoing should your used firearm you sold to a person who commits a crime. It proves to LEO instantly you no longer own it. It gives you a legal, provable chain of custody to a new owner. No different than a CAR. Imagine HIT AND RUN crimes if we didnt require existing laws to register your car.........



Cool strawman bro.

Was the thread changed to "items that could kill you that arent guns?" I dont think anyone rationally can make the argument that firearms should be treated differently as Furniture,Computers, Tools, Nailguns, etc.

First, none of the items you listed require the paperwork and background checks that firearms have. So the second part of your question is moot. No we shouldnt track items that we already DONT TRACK.

We track firearms, its already done, why not close a GIGANTIC LOOP HOLE in the private used gun market

Who will use the information collected? Who uses it currently? How will access to it be managed? How will it be protected against being abused by the government later? Answer these questions first before implementation.

[Vteckidd]

Drivers licenses belong to a NATIONAL database, they are state issued though. This is why if your GA license is suspended, you go to jail if you are in ARIZONA and get pulled over.

If youre so scared of the FEDs, then make it state mandatory with a national searchable database.

My point is you guys stick your head in the sand like a gun serial number identifies you, when you ALL PAY TAXES and do things DAILY like use a Debit card that gives out FAR MORE INFO than what firearm you own.

The Government KNOWS WHO YOU ARE already.

[Vteckidd]

As to the registering it like a used car - it already is. When a private individual sells a car to another private individual, they only sign a quick couple of documents - title, and BOS. There is no background check.

youre legally required to register the car in your county or face penalties and fines/jail time. The car is not allowed to be driven after 7 days or face penalties and fines/tickets. Possible impound. Also, youre mixing the two scenarios. You cannot be denied a NEW CAR because you have a DUI, you can be denied a LICENSE or INSURANCE which prohibits you from driving a car correct? There is no "background check" when you purchase the car new, so there is no Background check when you purchase the car used.

Guns- We require background check to purchase NEW, we should require background check to purchase USED.

You cannot place a requirement of a background check on private sales. The only alternative is to have all individuals get a registration card allowing them to purchase a firearm. Register the person, rahter than the weapon. That would be an infringment on the individual's rights from a legal perspective.

Why not? What makes the USED sale different from the NEW sale? Same firearm, same serial number, same danger/respect/caution needs to be used. Why shouldnt the same requirements be used?

What you suggest is plausible too, and im actually more in favor of that road. Require people to get a FIREARMS LICENSE that is some standard we all agree too. Certain level IQ (above mental retardation) , psychological test, safety course, firing course. No different than what we do for drivers licenses. Retest every 5 years. you could integrate it into the DMVs.

But i figured my route was less intrusive, silly me

[David88vert]

What you suggest is plausible too, and im actually more in favor of that road. Require people to get a FIREARMS LICENSE that is some standard we all agree too. Certain level IQ (above mental retardation) , psychological test, safety course, firing course. No different than what we do for drivers licenses. Retest every 5 years. you could integrate it into the DMVs.

But i figured my route was less intrusive, silly me

So, you want to set aside the 2nd Amendment? How about we give up the 1st Amendment also - no free speech, regulate the internet, and seize all weapons? Oh wait, that is just what Mussolini and Hitler did.....

[Vteckidd]

So, you want to set aside the 2nd Amendment? How about we give up the 1st Amendment also - no free speech, regulate the internet, and seize all weapons? Oh wait, that is just what Mussolini and Hitler did.....

so because a CAR wasnt invented in the time of our Fore Fathers , means a license test is not giving up our rights when we all agree to Drivers License requirements? Am i reading that right?

Im not advocating giving up any rights, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. So you must agree with all of the following statements:

Mentally deranged and insane people should be able to own a firearm
Retarded people should be allowed to own a firearm
Convicted Felons should be allowed to own a Firearm
there should be no age restriction on who owns a firearm.

Do you agree with all those statements? If not, then you are AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS IT WAS WRITTEN! :trollface:

[David88vert]

then you disagree with lawas already on the books correct? SO you have the same fear when you purchase a new weapon right?

Again, THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS, whats wrong with extending it to cover used weapons? IF YOU BuY A USED GUN, IT IS SERIALIZED, ATF KNOWS ABOUT IT. WHY SHOULDNT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN IT GETS SOLD AGAIN? All im asking for is CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

Drivers licenses belong to a NATIONAL database, they are state issued though. This is why if your GA license is suspended, you go to jail if you are in ARIZONA and get pulled over.

If youre so scared of the FEDs, then make it state mandatory with a national searchable database.

My point is you guys stick your head in the sand like a gun serial number identifies you, when you ALL PAY TAXES and do things DAILY like use a Debit card that gives out FAR MORE INFO than what firearm you own.

The Government KNOWS WHO YOU ARE already.

The government may know who you are, but they do not know all of what you own. A complete registration changes that, and gives the government more capabilities to abuse its power.

The national database for drivers licenses did not exist just 15 years ago.

[Vteckidd]

The national database for drivers licenses did not exist just 15 years ago.

are we better off for it? yes or no.

You realize as time goes on, ALL FIREARMS will be tracked. MOre and more used guns will be used in crimes and confiscated, or used guns destroyed, etc. Eventually all guns on the market will be serial tracked as we phase out older and older guns.

I can tell you the ATF is at best WEEKS behind on people buying firearms from a gun store. They are so far behind its SCARY. The gun is already sold once they have questions on who it was sold to.

[David88vert]

are we better off for it? yes or no.

You realize as time goes on, ALL FIREARMS will be tracked. MOre and more used guns will be used in crimes and confiscated, or used guns destroyed, etc. Eventually all guns on the market will be serial tracked as we phase out older and older guns.

I can tell you the ATF is at best WEEKS behind on people buying firearms from a gun store. They are so far behind its SCARY. The gun is already sold once they have questions on who it was sold to.

Are we better off with a national drivers license database? Define "we". Do you mean the people, or the government? What is the standard for defining it as successful? What freedoms does it imped?

As to what I think - there is no obvious disadvantage, and it's not something that the government could obviously abuse, like a firearms registration list.

[Sinfix_15]

Actually, Vteckidd, on this one Sinfix understands it, and upi do not appear to. The ONLY thing that registration of all firearms does is give the government a list of firearms where they can confiscate them later. That is the whole point of a national gun registry. Driver licenses are not national, they are state maintained. A federal registration is not the same, and our founding father specifically warned that the federal government should not be in control of guns.

Georgia does not require the registration of firearms owned by citizens. Georgia law actually prohibits local city/county governments from registering firearms when applying for a firearms license. However dangerous weapons must be registered in compliance with the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 and Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968
Georgia has only 2 laws that regulate the purchasing of firearms. All other purchasing laws come from Federal law.

Government should be be afraid of the people, not the people be afraid of the government.

In the examples that I listed earlier, every single atrocity started with a federal registration to get a list, then a banning, followed by a seizure. None of these other nations believed that it could happen to them either, but it did. What makes you think that the US is any different, or special, compared to other nations that have been through this in the last 100 years?

As to the registering it like a used car - it already is. When a private individual sells a car to another private individual, they only sign a quick couple of documents - title, and BOS. There is no background check. You cannot place a requirement of a background check on private sales. The only alternative is to have all individuals get a registration card allowing them to purchase a firearm. Register the person, rahter than the weapon. That would be an infringment on the individual's rights from a legal perspective.

This.

[.blank cd]

They made many statements on firearms - read the quotes, and look up more for yourself. They had just come out of a revolution, and a war - they knew that firearms kept an oppressive government at bay. They were very clear in their statements.

Yes. They were very clear that every American has the constitutional right to automatic weapons and high powered ballistics.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes. They were very clear that every American has the constitutional right to automatic weapons

The purpose was to arm ourselves AGAINST the government. You can say that the constitution was made when we were using powder muskets and assume that they wouldnt have allowed us to have automatic weapons back then......

back then..... they were riding horses and shooting muskets too.... Force should equal force..... Even if i have a basement full of AK47s and AR15s... im still no threat to the governments tanks, aircraft carriers, rockets, jets, helicopters..................

but its a matter of principle, the constitution wanted us to be protected from the government itself, so i find it hard to argue the limitation of firepower.

[bu villain]

The purpose was to arm ourselves AGAINST the government. You can say that the constitution was made when we were using powder muskets and assume that they wouldnt have allowed us to have automatic weapons back then......

back then..... they were riding horses and shooting muskets too.... Force should equal force..... Even if i have a basement full of AK47s and AR15s... im still no threat to the governments tanks, aircraft carriers, rockets, jets, helicopters..................

but its a matter of principle, the constitution wanted us to be protected from the government itself, so i find it hard to argue the limitation of firepower.

Isn't the logical conclusion to that thinking that any individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? If not, where do you draw the line and why?

[Sinfix_15]

Isn't the logical conclusion to that thinking that any individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? If not, where do you draw the line and why?

I cant use a nuclear weapon without harming someone. I can fire 10481239489012384901238490184239012849 rounds a day thru a AR15 without harming anyone. You draw the line at the point where my freedom restricts someone else's freedom. Anything i can do in the privacy of my own home or land without harming anyone else should be acceptable.

[David88vert]

Yes. They were very clear that every American has the constitutional right to automatic weapons and high powered ballistics.

The founding fathers still dealt with firearms. The point is that they wanted the people to be able to resist an oppressive government. They had just dealt with that. At that point in time, they might have actually been for automatics, as they had just finished a war. We are not in a war, but there should be no reason that a law-abiding individual could not purchase one.

[Vteckidd]

i see what you did there.

Good debate, i gotta go get some stuff done LOL wasted too much time on here. Thanks for the lively discussion guys! i always enjoy conversations with Sinfix and Dave, very smart guys. Always engaging.

Celebrate by going to a range and shooting?

Cheers

[Sinfix_15]

i see what you did there.

Good debate, i gotta go get some stuff done LOL wasted too much time on here. Thanks for the lively discussion guys! i always enjoy conversations with Sinfix and Dave, very smart guys. Always engaging.

Celebrate by going to a range and shooting?

Cheers

Same, time to get to work. I enjoy watching you guys argue....

[David88vert]

i see what you did there.

Good debate, i gotta go get some stuff done LOL wasted too much time on here. Thanks for the lively discussion guys! i always enjoy conversations with Sinfix and Dave, very smart guys. Always engaging.

Celebrate by going to a range and shooting?

Cheers

I just want to make sure that your descendants get to have your old hand-me-down guns in the future. :-)

[Vteckidd]

Interesting read

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control | Cracked.com

[David88vert]

Interesting read

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control | Cracked.com

The writer is 100% wrong on #1 and #2 and has no clue as to what he is writing about.


On #2 - See this story: Police: Lancaster man with axe demanded money from local restaurant | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper
Clearly, the gun was used correctly to protect the owners life against a man threatening him with an axe.

On #1 - Read the quotes that I posted before by the founding fathers. They made it clear that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. People who try to say it was for a militia only and for state rights don't read what the founding fathers wrote, and further clarified in later statements. Obviously, the writer never bothered to study his history, and simply copied gun control advocates incorrect statements.

[Julio]

I just read this entire thread... On a Friday Night.. Wtf mate... Anyways.. I would never want to register any of my weapons.

[.blank cd]

I cant use a nuclear weapon without harming someone. I can fire 10481239489012384901238490184239012849 rounds a day thru a AR15 without harming anyone. You draw the line at the point where my freedom restricts someone else's freedom. Anything i can do in the privacy of my own home or land without harming anyone else should be acceptable.

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

[David88vert]

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

Since the discussion has been about the US laws concerning weapons, for your information, the last nuclear weapon test on US soil happened in Nevada in July 1962 - over 50 years ago. So exactly what do you mean when you say that they are tested all the time?
Please enlighten us on this. Again, it appears that you are making statements that have no basis in fact.

[.blank cd]

Since the discussion has been about the US laws concerning weapons, for your information, the last nuclear weapon test on US soil happened in Nevada in July 1962 - over 50 years ago. So exactly what do you mean when you say that they are tested all the time?
Please enlighten us on this. Again, it appears that you are making statements that have no basis in fact.

My general statement wasnt about ONLY US nukes on ONLY US soil, but ask and ye shall receive enlightenment. There have been over 2000 nuclear device tests worldwide since Trinity in 1945. The total official count of US device tests is 1054, so yes, they got tested ALL THE TIME. The last US test was Operation Julin in September 1992, at the Nevada test site, which consisted of 8 different devices (all of which had their own codename). Im gonna guess that at least a couple of those were tested in the middle of the desert underground, so no one experienced any fallout. Bush Sr. signed a moratorium on nuclear device testing in October of 1992. The last known nuclear device test was in 2009 by North Korea. Did I really need to go that in depth on the subject? No, but I had to make your attempt to make me look like a dumbass fail miserably.

[David88vert]

My general statement wasnt about ONLY US nukes on ONLY US soil, but ask and ye shall receive enlightenment. There have been over 2000 nuclear device tests worldwide since Trinity in 1945. The total official count of US device tests is 1054, so yes, they got tested ALL THE TIME. The last US test was Operation Julin in September 1992, at the Nevada test site, which consisted of 8 different devices (all of which had their own codename). Im gonna guess that at least a couple of those were tested in the middle of the desert underground, so no one experienced any fallout. Bush Sr. signed a moratorium on nuclear device testing in October of 1992. The last known nuclear device test was in 2009 by North Korea. Did I really need to go that in depth on the subject? No, but I had to make your attempt to make me look like a dumbass fail miserably.

Julin was an UNDERGROUND test. Normal people do not have the capability to perform UNDERGROUND testing. ATMOSPHERIC testing is the only option that an individual would be possibly capable of doing. The US has not performed atmospheric testing since 1962. Are you really trying to use underground testing as a reasonable possibility, when the discussion was specifically nuclear testing by an individual with US citizenship on US soil? You have lost focus of what the original question was and have been grasping at straws.

North Korea has claimed that they tested on back on 2009, which is not proven. The US has had zero nuclear testing that is publically acknowledged in over 20 years, partially due to the 1996 treaty that Clinton signed - that is hardly "all the time".

Read up, and learn. Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sinfix_15]

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

EPA might disagree. I could bury 500 gallons of used motor oil in my backyard too without initially hurting someone.... doesnt mean i'm not harming someone by doing that. Same with a nuclear bomb.

[.blank cd]

EPA might disagree. I could bury 500 gallons of used motor oil in my backyard too without initially hurting someone.... doesnt mean i'm not harming someone by doing that. Same with a nuclear bomb.

Maybe. I could also fire a bullet up into the air and kill someone...unintentionally. It has happend.

[David88vert]

Maybe. I could also fire a bullet up into the air and kill someone...unintentionally. It has happend.

True statement. And under our existing laws, you could be convicted and sentenced. No reason to register, ban, or seize all firearms. just enforce existing laws.

[.blank cd]

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

David, what 2nd grade english class did you not graduate from that made you think that was anything remotely close to a question? Without getting into analyzing sentence structure, the lack of a question mark did it for me.

My original statement was utterly and unequivocally 100% correct. Thank you for playing.

[.blank cd]

Julin was an UNDERGROUND test. Normal people do not have the capability to perform UNDERGROUND testing. ATMOSPHERIC testing is the only option that an individual would be possibly capable of doing. The US has not performed atmospheric testing since 1962. Are you really trying to use underground testing as a reasonable possibility, when the discussion was specifically nuclear testing by an individual with US citizenship on US soil? You have lost focus of what the original question was and have been grasping at straws.

North Korea has claimed that they tested on back on 2009, which is not proven. The US has had zero nuclear testing that is publically acknowledged in over 20 years, partially due to the 1996 treaty that Clinton signed - that is hardly "all the time".

Read up, and learn. Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would have been much easier for you to type "blank cd, you were incredibly 100% right". Read through the thread to see what the original question was and stop acting like a moron. You're the one reaching for straws now.

"normal people don't have the capacity to perform underground tests"

You're a fucking idiot. Normal people also don't have the capacity to acquire military grade nuclear warheads either.

[David88vert]

It would have been much easier for you to type "blank cd, you were incredibly 100% right". Read through the thread to see what the original question was and stop acting like a moron. You're the one reaching for straws now.

"normal people don't have the capacity to perform underground tests"

You're a fucking idiot. Normal people also don't have the capacity to acquire military grade nuclear warheads either.

Re-read it your self. This discussion was brought up by you asking if it would be ok for a regular citizen to own a nuclear weapon. Sinfix stated that there was no problem owning it, but you couldn't use it without harming others. YOU stated that they were tested all the time, impling that anyone could do the same testing. How exactly are they supposed to do that except as an atmospheric explosion? How about then the answer to your original question then is yes, an individual should technically not be limited from owning, and using one - as long as they have the same underground capabilities. The only issue is how they comply with the US treaty (which is not currently in force) that eliminates nuclear testing. This issue is because you live in the US, and are subject to the government - another issue for another discussion.
Is that the not the real answer to your original questions, or are you just typing with no real goal of real discussion?

You weren't joking, you were trying to find a way to corrolate limitation of gun ownership to the limitation of nuclear weapons - in other words, to say that an assault rifle or handgun is just as dangerous and should be limited/banned. I know where you were trying to take your arguments. Technically, you would be correct, although you don't realize it. The AK-47 has killed more poeple than all nuclear weapons combined, so it technically is more dangerous. That would be a better argument for you to have brought up.

[BanginJimmy]

How the hell did gun control turn into a question of nukes?

[.blank cd]

How the hell did gun control turn into a question of nukes?

Lol. I dunno, I made a joke, he took it seriously.

[David88vert]

Then what was your point to even typing it? Just to see if you could get words on a screen?

We are on the subject of US firearms and laws, and you want to just pop out a random global statment? That's what you are going with? And you think it will go unquestioned?

The facts are that no one agrees with your liberal gun-banning ideology here, because it doesn't work. It doesn't do anything to improve society, and only weakens the public.

There are approximately 33 million legal hunters in the US. Why shoud they give up their firearms? They aren't the problem.

[.blank cd]

The facts are that no one agrees with your liberal gun-banning ideology here, because it doesn't work.

Further proof that you don't read

[bu villain]

I brought up nukes too because sinflix had stated that since individuals right to bear arms was based on being able to fight the government, individuals should not be limited in their ability to obtain firepower when the government is not so limited. My question was not to equate a handgun to a nuke but to try to come up with a consensus on where to draw the lines for what is acceptable for individuals to own and what is reasonable regulation. Most people would probably agree that it is somewhere between handguns and nukes but where exactly should it be and why? Sinflix seemed to be saying that anything and everything was fine.