Main > Everything Else
The Clinton gun ban has expired!
Lilwolf:
1) Guns don't kill people... people kill people...
but guns help! Assault guns will help people who want to kill LOTS of people... well... both easier and more efficient.
2) What are assault weapons?
Guns that their only use is to kill people... made for military purposes. They are slightly limited, but you can convert almost all on the list to fully automatic for less then 100bucks.
My question is this... For a presidant that pretends to want to fight terrorism... Don't these weapons really really help?
I personally think they are fine for most people. I would love to own a few or just try a few at a gun range. Would be fun. But don't fool yourselfs.. I would NEVER take one hunting. And I would NEVER use one for defense of my house (because the sound of a shotgun cocking is MUCH more impressive to get people to run out of your house. They don't have any use other then for fun...
but they have a LOT of bad uses... that we should probably keep out of the hands (at a cheap price anyway).
I think we should just have a 5k tax on EVERY sale for assault weapons. (even selling your current one to another person). I personally think drug lords should be able to have them... Mainly because Miami Vice always had them, and I like to think my memories are real... even from TV.
I just want to make sure that the local drugdealer can't afford them... And the local dealer to the dealer can't afford more then one.
Dartful Dodger:
You are all making very good points and I've spent hours thinking about your views.
But seriously, does anyone know when Benelli will start selling their assault shot guns with collapsible stocks?
The Benelli web page is still saying:
Note: Civilian metal stocks are not collapsible.
The ban has expired people, I NEED my toys.
TA Pilot:
but guns help! Assault guns will help people who want to kill LOTS of people... well... both easier and more efficient.
Given that the right to arms is all about the people having the means to kill other people, this means these weapons are exactly the sort of thing the 2nd protects.
Guns that their only use is to kill people... made for military purposes
If thats the case, why arent they used by any military anywhere?
They are slightly limited, but you can convert almost all on the list to fully automatic for less then 100bucks.
You cannot.... and if you did, you'd break federal law and commit a felony.
My question is this... For a presidant that pretends to want to fight terrorism... Don't these weapons really really help?
Help who? the terrorists?
The guys that blow up buildings?
I would NEVER take one hunting
Why? My M-14 is an excellent deer rifle.
And I would NEVER use one for defense of my house (because the sound of a shotgun cocking is MUCH more impressive to get people to run out of your house.
This is too many movies and too little experience talking.
I just want to make sure that the local drugdealer can't afford them... And the local dealer to the dealer can't afford more then one.
Drug dealers dont get their weapons from gun dealers.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: tep0583 on September 16, 2004, 09:42:52 am ---
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 16, 2004, 03:25:43 am ---
--- Quote from: tep0583 on September 15, 2004, 11:21:36 pm ---It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".
--- End quote ---
We didn't NEED anthing to define it, until a prosecuter took somebody (Miller) to court over a care pertaining to "arms". The court then clarified their interpertatin of the 2nd's definition of "arms", so that the law would be "clear" in the future. (This IS my understanding as to the function of the courts.)
Religion and schools are and easy one. Schools are run by the government and the government is strictly forbidden from establising a "national Religion". Establishing a religion in schools is, in effect, establishing a national religion.
Freedom of the press vs fair trials is covered. You cannot violate the rights of people to have a fair trial for the right to free press. (Just as I cannot use my rght to arm myself to force you to give up your right to not self-incriminate)
--- Quote ---It's quaint to think of the Bill of Rights as black & white, but it's simply unworkable. They should not be tossed about willy-nilly, but they are not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.
--- End quote ---
Yes, obviously they should be tossed OUT willy-nilly, based on whim, for the "greater good". The Bill of Rights is quite Black & White and was intended to be this way. Take the first, for example, it states you have the right to "peacably assemble". Yelling 'fire' in a crowded building is going to do nothing to enhance the "peacability" of the "gathering" and is thus, not covered by the first. This is the same way criminals are denied the ability to own arms. (felons forfit cirten Constuitional rights) .
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Tep, I don't even know where to begin with this ??? Half of my questions you answered were rhetorical, lol. My point of listing all those exceptions to rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights was not a challenge to see if you could actually come up with the justification for those exceptions, it was simply to illustrate that there ARE exceptions. ... oh for crying out loud, this is retarded.
hunky_artist:
ok, there are lots of 'for' arguments here... all saying guns dont kill people, and that if you wanted to kill someone you would.. whatever the weapon...
... so if that's true you shouldn't have any higher a percentage of murders in your country than anywhere else, right?
how come The States then has more murders per year for the population, than most countries out there?
and I'm including countries that have guns, not just the ones that dont.
It is infinitly easier to shoot someone, than to physically plunge a knife in them, or kill them with your bare hands. The more removed from the victim you can be the easier it is. Especially for silly things like jilted lovers... where usuallly the worst that would happen without a gun is that they might get beat up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version