GUN CONTROL

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-27-2012, 11:12 AM
Sinfix_15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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.
07-27-2012, 11:17 AM
Sinfix_15

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

This.
07-27-2012, 11:23 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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?
07-27-2012, 11:25 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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
07-27-2012, 11:28 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
07-27-2012, 11:29 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.........

Quote:

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
07-27-2012, 11:29 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.
07-27-2012, 11:31 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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.....
07-27-2012, 11:33 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

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:
07-27-2012, 11:33 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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.
07-27-2012, 11:36 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.

Same people who use it now, ATF and Local LEO. Nothing changes.
07-27-2012, 11:36 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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.
07-27-2012, 11:40 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

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?

The people.

I think we are better off for it, especially in this age of terrorism. LEO now can know instantly if a cali drivers license is real or fake without having to be trained on all states different designes and security measures. I was caught in GA with a suspended AZ license when i was 19, i was arrested on site, taken to jail. It stopped what it was supposed to stop.

Quote:

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.

What if the govt decided that you could no longer own a car that gets less than 30mpg on the highway? They could march to your door and take your Vette or Mustang, or modded civic. Dont laugh, you know that is down the Obama pipeline (Cash for clunkers was a glimpse of what they would do). Its very feasible. Would any of us let that happen? NOPE
07-27-2012, 11:40 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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:

Driving is a priviledge. Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected individual right that was so important that the founding fathers thought to write a specific amendment for it.

Actually, the states pass laws regarding who is allowed to purchase firearms. And if those people demonstrate that they can properly handle a weapon, I have no issue with them having one.
07-27-2012, 11:40 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Same people who use it now, ATF and Local LEO. Nothing changes.

Pull your head out of the sand.
07-27-2012, 11:42 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

Driving is a priviledge. Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected individual right that was so important that the founding fathers thought to write a specific amendment for it.

Actually, the states pass laws regarding who is allowed to purchase firearms. And if those people demonstrate that they can properly handle a weapon, I have no issue with them having one.

they couldnt write an amendment for something that wasnt invented yet :P

Just like people argue that the amendment was meant to protect 1770 POWDER LOADED MUSKETS with Ball rounds that took 45 second to load 1 shot, NOT 100 round mag semi/fully automatic weapons that can cut down trees.

I dont like to play "im smarter than the fore fathers" so i dont pretend to know what they INTENDED, i just look at what they wrote. I dont believe my way circumvents anything they wrote.
07-27-2012, 11:43 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

The people.

I think we are better off for it, especially in this age of terrorism. LEO now can know instantly if a cali drivers license is real or fake without having to be trained on all states different designes and security measures. I was caught in GA with a suspended AZ license when i was 19, i was arrested on site, taken to jail. It stopped what it was supposed to stop.

What if the govt decided that you could no longer own a car that gets less than 30mpg on the highway? They could march to your door and take your Vette or Mustang, or modded civic. Dont laugh, you know that is down the Obama pipeline (Cash for clunkers was a glimpse of what they would do). Its very feasible. Would any of us let that happen? NOPE

The people in general are not better off.
As for going to jail on suspended license or no license, the local police let most go with just a ticket around here - that doesn't protect us.
On the car side - Cali already does that. They seize cars all the time. Now you want the entire country to be like that - communist/socialist?

How exactly would you stop them? Because that is how they will go after the guns also - read your history.
07-27-2012, 11:45 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

Pull your head out of the sand.

ATF tracks serial numbers NOW, already. LEO police people caught with "STOLEN" (UNREGISTERED IN MY LAW) weapons.

What changes?

Matter of fact, i can make the argument that NO additional guns will be added to the registry. Im talking about tracking guns that are ALREADY TRACKED and in the books. Just updating the people that actually own them. If theres some SECRET stash of weapons with serial numbers filed off, well no law discovers those.

In no way are you denying anyone a RIGHT that is already being afforded. Nothing says "you cant own a firearm".
07-27-2012, 11:46 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

they couldnt write an amendment for something that wasnt invented yet :P

Just like people argue that the amendment was meant to protect 1770 POWDER LOADED MUSKETS with Ball rounds that took 45 second to load 1 shot, NOT 100 round mag semi/fully automatic weapons that can cut down trees.

I dont like to play "im smarter than the fore fathers" so i dont pretend to know what they INTENDED, i just look at what they wrote. I dont believe my way circumvents anything they wrote.

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.
07-27-2012, 11:48 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

ATF tracks serial numbers NOW, already. LEO police people caught with "STOLEN" (UNREGISTERED IN MY LAW) weapons.

What changes?

Matter of fact, i can make the argument that NO additional guns will be added to the registry. Im talking about tracking guns that are ALREADY TRACKED and in the books. Just updating the people that actually own them. If theres some SECRET stash of weapons with serial numbers filed off, well no law discovers those.

In no way are you denying anyone a RIGHT that is already being afforded. Nothing says "you cant own a firearm".

Nothing yet.

There are quite a few member in Congress trying to take your guns. Go look up their positions and you will see that it is brewing in Congress. Those in power never want to give it up.
07-27-2012, 11:49 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

The people in general are not better off.
As for going to jail on suspended license or no license, the local police let most go with just a ticket around here - that doesn't protect us.

EHHH in AZ a suspended license means you get a ticket and you walk home after you park your car. They arrested me out here. I had to pay $990 to get out.

Quote:

On the car side - Cali already does that. They seize cars all the time. Now you want the entire country to be like that - communist/socialist?

I didnt say i agreed with it? You stated that a drivers registration list isnt as dangerous as a firearms list. I just showed you it was. Matter of fact cars are EASIER to track , much more in jeopardy NOW with your doomsday scenario

Quote:

How exactly would you stop them? Because that is how they will go after the guns also - read your history.

I dont believe in the doomsday scenarios that people use to push their agenda. I dont believe in the govt going door to door to take arms, i dont believe in the govt being this ultra covert tactical unit hell bent on destroying its citizens.

I believe our govt is just as corrupt as you probably think. But i also dont think that just because we take some responsible measures automatically=GUN GRABBING, THERE GOES OUR FREEDOMS.

We arent any of the countries listed before, i dont believe our citizens would roll over and give up guns. I just think thats a pipe dream.
07-27-2012, 11:50 AM
Vteckidd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

Nothing yet.

There are quite a few member in Congress trying to take your guns. Go look up their positions and you will see that it is brewing in Congress. Those in power never want to give it up.

i dont disagree with this at all, But they wont succeed. The country is overwhelmingly (over 50% minimum) in favor of right to bear arms. It wont change anytime soon
07-27-2012, 11:53 AM
.blank cd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.
07-27-2012, 11:54 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I dont believe in the doomsday scenarios that people use to push their agenda. I dont believe in the govt going door to door to take arms, i dont believe in the govt being this ultra covert tactical unit hell bent on destroying its citizens.

I believe our govt is just as corrupt as you probably think. But i also dont think that just because we take some responsible measures automatically=GUN GRABBING, THERE GOES OUR FREEDOMS.

We arent any of the countries listed before, i dont believe our citizens would roll over and give up guns. I just think thats a pipe dream.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

i dont disagree with this at all, But they wont succeed. The country is overwhelmingly (over 50% minimum) in favor of right to bear arms. It wont change anytime soon

No one used to believe it in those other countries. It happened.

We have Senators openly stating that they want to seize all of the guns, and they still get re-elected. You really believe that they won't continue to try until they succeed?
07-27-2012, 11:54 AM
Sinfix_15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

EHHH in AZ a suspended license means you get a ticket and you walk home after you park your car. They arrested me out here. I had to pay $990 to get out.

I didnt say i agreed with it? You stated that a drivers registration list isnt as dangerous as a firearms list. I just showed you it was. Matter of fact cars are EASIER to track , much more in jeopardy NOW with your doomsday scenario

I dont believe in the doomsday scenarios that people use to push their agenda. I dont believe in the govt going door to door to take arms, i dont believe in the govt being this ultra covert tactical unit hell bent on destroying its citizens.

I believe our govt is just as corrupt as you probably think. But i also dont think that just because we take some responsible measures automatically=GUN GRABBING, THERE GOES OUR FREEDOMS.

We arent any of the countries listed before, i dont believe our citizens would roll over and give up guns. I just think thats a pipe dream.

Nope, and it starts with rejecting proposals like this.
07-27-2012, 11:57 AM
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
07-27-2012, 11:59 AM
Sinfix_15

Quote:

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.
07-27-2012, 12:01 PM
Sinfix_15

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Same, time to get to work. I enjoy watching you guys argue....
07-27-2012, 12:17 PM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.
07-27-2012, 12:18 PM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

I just want to make sure that your descendants get to have your old hand-me-down guns in the future. :-)
07-27-2012, 02:42 PM
Vteckidd

Interesting read

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control | Cracked.com
07-27-2012, 03:05 PM
bu villain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

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?
07-27-2012, 10:23 PM
Julio

I just read this entire thread... On a Friday Night.. Wtf mate... Anyways.. I would never want to register any of my weapons.
07-27-2012, 11:25 PM
Sinfix_15

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

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.
07-28-2012, 08:11 AM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

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.
07-28-2012, 05:49 PM
.blank cd

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

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.
07-28-2012, 10:18 PM
David88vert

Quote:

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.
07-28-2012, 11:11 PM
Sinfix_15

Quote:

Originally Posted by .blank cd

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.
07-29-2012, 02:34 AM
.blank cd

Quote:

Originally Posted by David88vert

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.
07-29-2012, 02:36 AM
.blank cd

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

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.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.