Defend your right to own a car.

[David88vert]

First of all,... One step at a time.

I think you make a good point on how many transactions .... Nothing more, nothing less.

Why would you assume that? Private sales are not tracked, so how could you tally them? Seems obvious to me that the 40% number is at best a guess.

There are liberal think tanks and universities, as well as the FBI, ATF, and DOJ, that constantly study crime and guns. We do not need the government to finance more studies that do not have any real chance of making changes. Let private groups come back with recommendations, then limit studies to specific possible improvements.

There will be no black list on guns, and the no-fly list is more than just an approval or rejection. No software database is built on this scale without running a history of transactions (every request is a transaction), and there are many business intelligence programs that are utilized to generate active reports. Once of these is COGNOS, which is an IBM product, and is specifically designed to query giant databases to generate drill-down reports. Do you think that the government would only request that the database not keep history tables? Anyone approved for a purchase would be searchable in the database, and there you would have the beginnings of a simple registry list.

I assumed that you would have heard Obama's or Biden's speeches, considering how the media has published summaries of them, along with the quotes.

[David88vert]

I'm confused. On one hand, people say assault weapons are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, on the other hand, people are saying they're essential for suppressing a tyrannical government, which unquestionably requires a REALLY large amount of firepower. So are they or are they not more powerful than a rifle?

An assault style is a rifle, as is a hunting rifle. Both are just tools, and are only as dangerous as the person who wields them. if that was not true, we would need to disarm our soldiers and police as well.

[David88vert]

Now compare those numbers vs auto accidents... You can even do it per capita if you would like.

If we could save just one life ...

[Sinfix_15]

I'm confused. On one hand, people say assault weapons are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, on the other hand, people are saying they're essential for suppressing a tyrannical government, which unquestionably requires a REALLY large amount of firepower. So are they or are they not more powerful than a rifle?

It doesnt matter if they are or are not more powerful than a hunting rifle. A gun only does what it's commanded to do. I could have an f15 fighter jet armed with nuclear bombs.... and im not as dangerous as a street thug with a box cutter.

[.blank cd]

It doesnt matter if they are or are not more powerful than a hunting rifle. A gun only does what it's commanded to do. I could have an f15 fighter jet armed with nuclear bombs.... and im not as dangerous as a street thug with a box cutter.

So if it doesn't matter how powerful they are, I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with a hunting rifle as I could with an AR-15, am I wrong?

[David88vert]

So if it doesn't matter how powerful they are, I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with a hunting rifle as I could with an AR-15, am I wrong?

Our founding fathers with their hunting rifles managed to defeat the British Army under the control of a tyrannical king....

[Sinfix_15]

So if it doesn't matter how powerful they are, I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with a hunting rifle as I could with an AR-15, am I wrong?

An AR15 is a hunting rifle.

[Sinfix_15]

Evil doesnt need a gun...... never did.....

BBC News - Boston Marathon rocked by twin explosions

[.blank cd]

An AR15 is a hunting rifle.

So I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with this...



As I can with this?

[bu villain]

There are liberal think tanks and universities, as well as the FBI, ATF, and DOJ, that constantly study crime and guns. We do not need the government to finance more studies that do not have any real chance of making changes. Let private groups come back with recommendations, then limit studies to specific possible improvements.

As I said before, if I felt we had enough good information out their to make logical policy decisions, I wouldn't ask for any more government intervention.

There will be no black list on guns, and the no-fly list is more than just an approval or rejection. No software database is built on this scale without running a history of transactions (every request is a transaction), and there are many business intelligence programs that are utilized to generate active reports. Once of these is COGNOS, which is an IBM product, and is specifically designed to query giant databases to generate drill-down reports. Do you think that the government would only request that the database not keep history tables? Anyone approved for a purchase would be searchable in the database, and there you would have the beginnings of a simple registry list.

Why does it have to do what the no-fly list does? Why can't it just be a simple blacklist? I actually don't care what the government wants to do, I'm just trying to develop an idea that I think is appropriate in my opinion. Even if they record transactions, the database should just show approval or denial. Just because someone's name was ran, doesn't mean a sale was necessarily made and there is no reason any information about how many guns, what kind of gun, serial numbers, or anything like that needs to be included.

I assumed that you would have heard Obama's or Biden's speeches, considering how the media has published summaries of them, along with the quotes.

Of course, but it doesn't mean I believe everything that comes out of their mouths. C'mon, they are politicians. If you take anything they say at face value, you deserve your ignorance. If you know private guns transactions aren't traced, as Obama and Biden also regularly state, then it's obvious that they can't know how many private transfers are made with any precision.

[Sinfix_15]

You can always count on the liberal media not to let a tragedy go to waste...... theyre already blaming republicans on the boston attack.

[Sinfix_15]

So I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with this...



As I can with this?

Nope, the AR15, while being one of the most popular hunting rifles in the country..... has the bonus effect of being a formidable anti-assault weapon. It's like buying the truck that can tow 8000 lbs when your trailer only weighs 3000 lbs..... because who knows, maybe one day you will need to tow 8000 lbs.

Capability doesnt equal intent.

Every car on the road has the ability to speed.

[Sinfix_15]

CNN National Security Analyst Warns Of

The media cannot be trusted to accurately portray our government, yet we are suppose to trust in either of them.

[.blank cd]

So then in any given instance, an AR-15 is, in fact, without a doubt, more capable than a typical hunting rifle?

[bu villain]

You can always count on the liberal media not to let a tragedy go to waste...... theyre already blaming republicans on the boston attack.

wrong thread

[Sinfix_15]

So then in any given instance, an AR-15 is, in fact, without a doubt, more capable than a typical hunting rifle?

As is a corvette over a cavalier. Both at the discretion of their owners capable of either abiding by laws or breaking them. Buying a corvette doesnt make you speed, drive drunk or do anything irresponsible. Limiting everyone to cavaliers wouldnt stop those who wish to speed and drive drunk from doing so either. The only thing you would gain is politicians feeling more confident in their rides in the event of a street race breaking out.

[Sinfix_15]

wrong thread

No. It's a terrorist attack that happened without the use of a gun. Showing that evil people are evil...... guns dont make it so.

[bu villain]

No. It's a terrorist attack that happened without the use of a gun. Showing that evil people are evil...... guns dont make it so.

I think you are stretching a bit hard here. No one doubts crimes are committed quite regularly without the use of guns. I don't even think Feinstein would argue that people are only evil if they have a gun. Also you stated democrats are blaming republicans, not guns so how does that statement relate to this discussion?

[.blank cd]

As is a corvette over a cavalier. Both at the discretion of their owners capable of either abiding by laws or breaking them. Buying a corvette doesnt make you speed, drive drunk or do anything irresponsible. Limiting everyone to cavaliers wouldnt stop those who wish to speed and drive drunk from doing so either. The only thing you would gain is politicians feeling more confident in their rides in the event of a street race breaking out.

Ok, so would you agree that it's not really a great idea for everyone in the world to be able to drive a corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier at full tilt?

[Sinfix_15]

I think you are stretching a bit hard here. No one doubts crimes are committed quite regularly without the use of guns. I don't even think Feinstein would argue that people are only evil if they have a gun. Also you stated democrats are blaming republicans, not guns so how does that statement relate to this discussion?

Democrats are the biggest threat to guns on this planet. Pointing out their propaganda used to manipulate the emotions of the masses.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok, so would you agree that it's not really a great idea for everyone in the world to be able to drive a corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier at full tilt?

When owner of said corvette is caught speeding, suspend his license. Until then.... leave him alone and let him enjoy his corvette.

[.blank cd]

When owner of said corvette is caught speeding, suspend his license. Until then.... leave him alone and let him enjoy his corvette.

So you have a reactive approach to governance. Don't do anything until it happens. Don't prevent it from happening?

[David88vert]

Ok, so would you agree that it's not really a great idea for everyone in the world to be able to drive a corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier at full tilt?

Critical thinking - you just showed that it is beyond your abilities.

[.blank cd]

Critical thinking - you just showed that it is beyond your abilities.

So do you agree or disagree?

BTW, critical thinking does not mean think like me or you're an idiot. So I don't even know why you posted that.

[David88vert]

So you have a reactive approach to governance. Don't do anything until it happens. Don't prevent it from happening?

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

[Sinfix_15]

So you have a reactive approach to governance. Don't do anything until it happens. Don't prevent it from happening?

Banning cars would prevent car accidents. The "good" done by banning cars far out weighs that of guns. "if we can save one life".................



When you start removing freedom for the sake of safety, you are no longer free. Freedom is dangerous. - Thomas Jefferson

[Sinfix_15]

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Hogwash.... nothing more than a system that our president is constrained by.

[David88vert]

So do you agree or disagree?

You assume that everyone is just going to break the law and drive at full tilt?

[.blank cd]

Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Yes. It seems like you haven't, because this concept is irrelevant to the discussion.

[.blank cd]

You assume that everyone is just going to break the law and drive at full tilt?

No. I'm not assuming that. Do you agree or disagree, that's the only question Im prompting here.

[bu villain]

Democrats are the biggest threat to guns on this planet. Pointing out their propaganda used to manipulate the emotions of the masses.

On the planet huh?

[.blank cd]

Trying to get you gun nuts to think outside your small box of reality. It's tough, but I know we can do it.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes. It seems like you haven't, because this concept is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is relevant.....

You base your actions on the misuse of a tool. You declare the users of that tool guilty before they commit a crime, based on the tool's ability to be used in a crime.

[David88vert]

No. I'm not assuming that. Do you agree or disagree, that's the only question Im prompting here.

You stated the question specifically with that wording, did you not?

Why should I answer your question with anything other than a question?

[.blank cd]

Banning cars would prevent car accidents. The "good" done by banning cars far out weighs that of guns. "if we can save one life"

your legs must be cramped from all that jumping to conclusions. Just slow down and answer the question. I didnt say anything about banning cars yet.

[Sinfix_15]

On the planet huh?

Yep.

[Sinfix_15]

your legs must be cramped from all that jumping to conclusions. Just slow down and answer the question. I didnt say anything about banning cars yet.

It's easier to kill people with an AR15 than it is a bolt action 22. Do we ban the AR15 based on that ability? or punish the misuse?
It's easier to speed in a corvette than it is a cavalier. Do we ban the corvette based on that ability? or punish the misuse?

[.blank cd]

You stated the question specifically with that wording, did you not?

Why should I answer your question with anything other than a question?

I don't care what you answer it with. I'm not assuming everyone is driving at full tilt. Do you agree or disagree that it's not a great idea to have everyone in the world driving a Corvette at full tilt, over a cavalier?

[bu villain]

Yep.

someone should warn all the foreign guns.

[David88vert]

Trying to get you gun nuts to think outside your small box of reality. It's tough, but I know we can do it.

Why would you assume that some one is a gun nut just because they stand up for the Constitution and the Amendments?

Why do you think that you have a grasp on reality and others don't?