The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: Setabs on September 20, 2004, 05:26:29 am
-
http://www.cox-internet.com/budholly/cj.wmv (http://www.cox-internet.com/budholly/cj.wmv)
Thats some insane shooting. :o I'd hate to have to clean up all the shells laying around.
-
Thats the sound of freedom.
-
!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!
:o nothing better than a hot woman with a full auto machine gun.
-
!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!
:o nothing better than a hot woman with a full auto machine gun.
What about a hot woman with a full auto machine gun naked in your bed? Heck forget the whole machine gun part...
-
I think what scares me the most is the fact that only about 4 or 5 people were actually shooting correctly with the automatic weapons, and that these things are available on the open market now....
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/192748 (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/192748)
I'm all for American's rights to bear arms, but do we really NEED assault rifles to defend our homes?
-
Fully automatic weapons are STILL illegal. The ban was on SEMI-AUTOMATIC assult weapons.
-
I was trying to find more info on the shoot on the web. Apperently from one website most of those people have special permits for those weapons. I would only hope that the requirments are insane for the permit.
Darkstalker as in the other post. Those guns in the flash post were still available to consumers. I'm pretty sure osama's ak fully automatic.
-
I think what scares me the most is the fact that only about 4 or 5 people were actually shooting correctly with the automatic weapons, and that these things are available on the open market now....
Machineguns have been tightly regulated since 1934. The expiration of the AW ban has absolutely no effect on the availiability of machineguns.
I'm all for American's rights to bear arms, but do we really NEED assault rifles to defend our homes?
Depends on the threat, doesnt it? If you 'beleive' in the right to arms, then you know it was protected so that it could be exercised individually and/or collectively.
If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".
-
I liked the Slipknot and Otep playing. I was impartial about the shooting.
-
Wow. That's a bunch of shells, all right.
-
Sweet!! Guns 'n' Babes. The real reason for the internet!!
-
Fully automatic weapons are STILL illegal. The ban was on SEMI-AUTOMATIC assult weapons.
Actually, Full Auto weapons are not Illegal. You can own and operate a full auto weapon, but you first have to have the FBI fingure print test done, full background investigation and then pay a hefty fee. Upon full completion, you too can be the proud owner of a full auto weapon.
-
I'm all for American's rights to bear arms, but do we really NEED assault rifles to defend our homes?
Depends on the threat, doesnt it? If you 'beleive' in the right to arms, then you know it was protected so that it could be exercised individually and/or collectively.
If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".
I'm glad I don't live near you.
-
If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".
I'm glad I don't live near you.
Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.
-
If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".
I'm glad I don't live near you.
Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.
But it's a self perpetuating problem. I support our right as Americans for the right to bear arms, but that breeds the desire and need to exercise the right. By doing so, you introduce more people (Who can be seen in that video) that do not handle a firearm safely that feel the need to own such weapons because anyone can. It instills a "cold civil war", an internal arms race that serves no purpose other than to make card carying NRA members and the Christian Coallition happy.
But, it's not the responsible gun owners that worry me. By lifting the ban, it makes it easier for non-responsible people to get these guns. Look at the school shootings here in the US over the past few years. The original owner of the gun could be an exemplary member of the NRA, but it wasn't the owner of the guns that shot up the school.
Most families in America have two working parents now. You could follow all the gun storage safety rules, but if someone breaks into your house when you aren't there...free semi-automatic/automatic gun with no waiting period. Who cares about the fact that if these guns were not allowed in the first place, that wouldn't be an issue.
Yes, I do support our right to bear arms given to us by the Constitution. I also believe in a philosophy most people are quick to forget these days:
Be reasonable.
Sure, I talk on my cell phone and drive, but I do it safely. I know the car and what's going on around me comes first, and I keep conversations as brief as I can. However, I will gladly give up the privilage, or have imposed restrictions (Like 55mph in the slow lane) if that means stopping people that CAN'T drive while talking on the cell phone from hitting me or anyone else. I am willing to give up that liberty because I don't NEED to talk on my cell phone when I drive. We as Americans don't NEED semi or fully automatic weapons in every household. Arguing that you need them because your neighbors can have them is resorting to 8 year-old mentality: "But Jimmy has one!"
I worry about the Joe Schmo that panics and gets too trigger happy trying to take down an intruder and accidentaly shoots an unseen kid across the street that was riding their bike down the road. I worry for the civil servants who now have an added sense of danger for what used to be a simple routine call where body armor is not the norm. I worry about the theft of such guns from responsible gun owners by irresponsible people that end up comitting extra crimes with guns that didn't need to be there. I worry on the 4th of July when I hear gunshots because the falling bullet might hit and kill someone, maybe me. Are these unlikely? Yea. Are these possible? Definately. Most importantly, does the AW Ban reduce any of these concerns? Not one bit.
-
If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".
I'm glad I don't live near you.
Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.
Poor TA Pilot. He's so excited about the revolution, when we'll all take to the streets and blow the crap out of anything that moves. Unfortunately when the revolution comes TA Pilot will most likely be long dead.
At least he'll be able to look down from heaven and know that his kids or perhaps grandkids will be armed to the teeth when it comes.
That there's altruism.
-
...but that breeds the desire and need to exercise the right. By doing so, you introduce more people (Who can be seen in that video) that do not handle a firearm safely that feel the need to own such weapons because anyone can...
There will always be a fraction of the population that cant be responible - with guns or anything else. That some people arent responible with firearms is not an argument agianst firearms.
It instills a "cold civil war", an internal arms race that serves no purpose other than to make card carying NRA members and the Christian Coallition happy.
This is absurd.
As the population grows, the number of gun owners anbd the number of guns grow - as the % of the opulation that own guns stays more or less the same. This is a function of population growth, not the NRA, et al.
You might as well be arguing that the increasing number of senior citizens relative to the population serves no other purpose than to make members of the AARP happy.
But, it's not the responsible gun owners that worry me. By lifting the ban, it makes it easier for non-responsible people to get these guns.
No it doesnt.
These guns were available --during-- the ban. There isnt a single gun that you could buy on 9-13 that you could not buy on 9-10. I bought 2; I know people that bought 3 or more. All perfectly legal.
Look at the school shootings here in the US over the past few years.
Yes - they all took place while the "assault weapon ban" was in effect. Whats that tell you?
Who cares about the fact that if these guns were not allowed in the first place, that wouldn't be an issue.
Like it or not, the 'banned' weapons are exactly the kind that are protected by the 2nd amendment. T hey clearly qualify as "arms".
I also believe in a philosophy most people are quick to forget these days: Be reasonable.
You make a 'reasonable' argument for the "AWB" and I'll consider it. Note that I will actively question your reasoning.
We as Americans don't NEED semi or fully automatic weapons in every household.
This is called a 'strawman'. No one is arguing that eveyone "needs" an "assault weapon". Thus, your argument here is meaningless.
Arguing that you need them because your neighbors can have them is resorting to 8 year-old mentality: "But Jimmy has one!"
Another strawman
"Assault weapons" are perfectly capable of being used in any legitimate lawful role you might have for a firearm. As such, there isnt a legitimate question of "needing" them - you clearly have the constitutionally protected right to one.
-
"There will always be a fraction of the population that cant be responible - with guns or anything else. That some people arent responible with firearms is not an argument agianst firearms.
I'm not arguing against firearms, I'm arguing for restricted ownership via gun control laws. Every American citizen over the age of 16 should be allowed to own small arms firearms and sporting guns given the fact that they serve a practical non-malicious purpose such as hunting. I even had a hunting permit for what it's worth. Supporting the AWB lift just doesn't make sense.
You might as well be arguing that the increasing number of senior citizens relative to the population serves no other purpose than to make members of the AARP happy.
I'll conced that the NRA and CC links to the ban lift are weak, but the link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas. Another review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates and suicide rates. This new lapse in legislation certainly isn't going to lower that total.
No it doesnt.
These guns were available --during-- the ban. There isnt a single gun that you could buy on 9-13 that you could not buy on 9-10. I bought 2; I know people that bought 3 or more. All perfectly legal.
Actually there were 19 guns that were banned in that law, loopholes allowed a name change for some to get around it. It was a step in the right direction, at least it warranted a new law sans loopholes to be instated instead of a complete lapse.
Yes - they all took place while the "assault weapon ban" was in effect. Whats that tell you?
Since 1994 when the AWB was implemented, there was a LARGE drop in semi-automatic weapon related crimes. While not 100% effective, it doesn't hurt.
Because DUI fatalities occur even though drunken driving is illegal, is that grounds to make driving while intoxicated legal by not renewing a law should it come time? That's the same twisted logic you are trying to spoonfeed me...
Like it or not, the 'banned' weapons are exactly the kind that are protected by the 2nd amendment. T hey clearly qualify as "arms".
Wrong again. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment only protects the collective right of the people to maintain well-regulated militias. It makes no restrictions as to what types of arms are acceptable. That is left to federal and state law, hence the ban. If it did make restrictions, my state's ban would have been declared unconstitutional long ago (Which was attempted and defeated in court, BTW).
"You make a 'reasonable' argument for the "AWB" and I'll consider it. Note that I will actively question your reasoning."
1. Guns are a major cause of death: 30 countries in the UN study reported more than 200,000 deaths per year in murder, accidents and suicide. Many are preventable. These numbers can only go up with more advanced weapons on the market.
2. Firearms are used in crime. Firearms theft fuels other crimes. More powerful firearms, increased violence in crimes.
3. The unrestrained proliferation of firearms undermines peacebuilding, governance and civil society.
I won't step on your right to question those three, but your ethics and morals would definately come into play.
"Assault weapons" are perfectly capable of being used in any legitimate lawful role you might have for a firearm. As such, there isnt a legitimate question of "needing" them - you clearly have the constitutionally protected right to one.
Semi-automatic weapons have only ONE PURPOSE: To kill groups of people. They are not "sporting" guns, they are meant to kill humans quickly and efficiently. Since you seem to think that all arms are OK, why don't I just go out an buy some tanks, F-22s, some RPGs, and M-16s..."just in case." I'm a responsible law-abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be allowed to since it is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms? I'll give fingerprints, a DNA test, pee in a cup, pass an FBI background check, and sit out a three MONTH waiting period. Of course I'm being absurd here, but in seriousness where do you draw the line? When do things become "Not OK" to own? Given your arguments thusfar, there should be no line given enough monitary resources because it is a constitutionally protected right to own any defensive arms I choose. I'm stating that the line was drawn (poorly) with the AWB.
-
It's funny. We're all dancing around the real issue here. Both sides. My faction is pretending we really think that these assault weapons are a major problem that need to be banned. Dartful's side pretends that being able to own these assault weapons is really important to them.
What neither side comes out and says, is that the real issue is handguns. I want to ban them. You want to keep them.
Most of you gun nuts want an assault rifle about as much as you want a grenade. And if you do want one, you likely don't want one bad enough to actually pay for one.
The only reason the assault weapons ban applied only to assault weapons, though, is that's just all we could get. But both sides know that it was just a start. You lost ground to us when that assault weapons ban went into place, and it's lapse meant you gained that ground back.
The way I see it, the lapse of the assault weapons ban is important to y'all more for the extra insulation it provides to your handguns, than it's actually putting assault weapons back on the market.
That's the way it works for me anyway. Had the assault weapons ban been renewed, see, after a few years people would just kind of forget that assault weapons were ever really legal. That's when we'd strike again. We'd work like this --slowlike-- until we could start putting some real restrictions on handguns.
Now, our next victory will have to be another ban on assault weapons, and we'll have to fight for it all over again. So we'll basically have to start over. And that, of course, postpones the day when handgun ownership is threatened.
-
If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".
I'm glad I don't live near you.
Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.
I have a feeling if it comes to a "collective battle". You'll be in your self made bunker....
-
Now, our next victory will have to be another ban on assault weapons, and we'll have to fight for it all over again. So we'll basically have to start over. And that, of course, postpones the day when handgun ownership is threatened.
Shmokes, I agree that there has to be some limits. Every right has limits. We all agree on that. That's our common ground.
Where we differ is on what those limits should be.
The problem is that if we give an inch, then you would take a mile. That's what polarizes people. The gun owners realize that the ban is the ultimate goal of the gun control people. That why it's hard to negotiate any 'good' change because it's perceived to be a first step toward the ultimate goal. And most of the time it is.
after a few years people would just kind of forget that assault weapons were ever really legal.
That's a blinding flash of the obvious.
The issue here is that some of these "assault" weapons were not what most people would consider "assault" type weapons. It was a broad generalization that included shotguns and semi-automatic weapons with big clips.
I don't want a grenade. I don't want a LAW or an M203. I want an SKS or a 30/30. They are handy because I'm lazy, I don't like to walk all the way out in my woods to shoot those varmints. I like to do it from my porch.
There are "nuts" on both sides of the issue, and on every issue for that matter.
We need to hold the line on legislating for one idiot somewhere. It's why I have to take off my #@@! shoes at the airport. 1 Billion people have flown without having a bomb in their shoes in all of aviation history. 1 guy, 1 guy does it and I have to slip off my tennies at the airport.
-
Supporting the AWB lift just doesn't make sense.
If I said this once, I said it a thousand times:
The "assault weapon ban" didnt ban anything.
Why does the "ban" make sense?
Note that the ban wasnt repealed, it expired. The expiration was built into the original law.
This new lapse in legislation certainly isn't going to lower that total.
You're far more likely to be murdered with a bladed weapon, a blunt object, or personal weapons (hands/feet/teeth) than an "assault weapon". Your fear is unfounded.
Actually there were 19 guns that were banned in that law, loopholes allowed a name change for some to get around it.
And thus, there was no ban. Thank you.
Why do you lament the expiration of a ban that didnt ban anything?
Since 1994 when the AWB was implemented, there was a LARGE drop in semi-automatic weapon related crimes.
Reeeaaallllyyyyy.
Support this claim.
Show that it cant be attributed to the general reduction on overall violent crime from 1992-on
While not 100% effective, it doesn't hurt.
Sure it does.
It violates my rigths.
Yours too.
Because DUI fatalities occur even though drunken driving is illegal, is that grounds to make driving while intoxicated legal by not renewing a law should it come time? That's the same twisted logic you are trying to spoonfeed me...
Hardly.
DUI is a crime. Murdering people is a crime. Making something a crime doesnt stop the crime, it creates a means through which the crime can be punished.
Gun control doesnt do this. Gun control tries to limit access to a tool used in crime; it does not try to stop the crime. In your DUI comparison, murder is analogous to DUI, the gun is analogous to the alcohol.
You'll note that the most effective means of reducing DUI has nothing to do with stricter control on alcohol.
Wrong again. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment only protects the collective right of the people to maintain well-regulated militias.
Cite the case. Good luck.
It makes no restrictions as to what types of arms are acceptable. That is left to federal and state law, hence the ban.
US v Miller (1939) creates a test as to determine what weapons are considered 'arms' and are thus protected.
"Assault weapons" pass this test.
If it did make restrictions, my state's ban would have been declared unconstitutional long ago (Which was attempted and defeated in court, BTW).
Show me where the USSC upheld your state ban.
1. Guns are a major cause of death: 30 countries in the UN study reported more than 200,000 deaths per year....
This is meaningless in terms of why they should be banned in the US.
2. Firearms are used in crime. Firearms theft fuels other crimes. More powerful firearms, increased violence in crimes.
Except that:
- a minority of crime involves firearms (~25%)
- a tiny % of firerms are used in crime (~0.14%)
- a VERY tiny % of firearms are used to commit murder (~0.003%)
- a tiny % of firearm murders are committed with "assault weapons" (>3%)
- there are at least twice as many guns now as 30 years ago, and yet the crime rate is lower.
So, while some of what you said is true, the level of incident doesnt warrant the attention you give it- and as crime is at the same level as 30 years ago, the number of firearms, having doubled, clearly doesnt affect the levek of crime.
3. The unrestrained proliferation of firearms undermines peacebuilding, governance and civil society.
This is meaningless in terms of why they should be banned in the US- unless, of course, you can show that these things are a problem in the US and "assault weapons" are the cause.
I won't step on your right to question those three, but your ethics and morals would definately come into play.
Obviously not.
Semi-automatic weapons have only ONE PURPOSE: To kill groups of people....
You arent addressing what I said:
"Assault weapons" are prefectly able to be used in any manner you might legitimately use a firearm. Hunting, target shooting, self defense. There isnt any of the things listed above that I cannot effectively use any of my assault weapons for.
So, clearly, they arent just for killing people.
Never mind that the right to arms is -all about- killing people, not Bambi.
-
Never mind that the right to arms is -all about- killing people, not Bambi.
I said it before and I'll say in again... I'm glad I don't live near you...
How is that membership with the Michigan Militia doing anyways??
-
I said it before and I'll say in again... I'm glad I don't live near you...
Likewise - though you'll note that I have tetesticular fortitute as to say WHY I'm glad I dont live near you.
How is that membership with the Michigan Militia doing anyways??
I live in Ohio.
As per the Ohio Revised Code, every able bodied male citizen of age and I are all member of the Militia of the state of Ohio.
So, I'd have to say membership is quite good.
-
I said it before and I'll say in again... I'm glad I don't live near you...
Likewise - though you'll note that I have tetesticular fortitute as to say WHY I'm glad I dont live near you.
Cause I don't want to get gun down one day cause I stepped on your lawn
How is that membership with the Michigan Militia doing anyways??
I live in Ohio.
As per the Ohio Revised Code, every able bodied male citizen of age and I are all member of the Militia of the state of Ohio.
So, I'd have to say membership is quite good.
I hope the British don't attack your Militia again with left over muskets from the War of 1812.
-
Cause I don't want to get gun down one day cause I stepped on your lawn
Are you REALLY so intellectually immature to think that I'll shoot you for doing that? I mean, REALLY?
If thats the case, then once you're old enogh to own a gun, I sincerely hope you choose not to.
I hope the British don't attack your Militia again with left over muskets from the War of 1812.
What makes you think this response has any legitimate meaning?
-
I hope the British don't attack your Militia again with left over muskets from the War of 1812.
What makes you think this response has any legitimate meaning?
Ok... history lesson for you... The right to form a Militia was put in place in the 1800's when there was no central army to protect the original US colonies from attack from the British.
-
Cause I don't want to get gun down one day cause I stepped on your lawn
Are you REALLY so intellectually immature to think that I'll shoot you for doing that? I mean, REALLY?
I'm not a gambling man to find out if you would or not... so I prefer to say away from your lawn.
-
Ok... history lesson for you... The right to form a Militia was put in place in the 1800's when there was no central army to protect the original US colonies from attack from the British.
Ok... history lesson for you...
The units that fought the Redcoats under Smith and Pitcairn at Lexington and Concorde? In April 1775? They were militia.
So clearly the right to form militia predates the 19th century.
Additionally, the US Army was founded by the Continental Congress on June 14 1775.
So clearly, there WAS a central army in the 1800s.
Any other lessons you need? I may have to start charging.
-
Ok... history lesson for you... The right to form a Militia was put in place in the 1800's when there was no central army to protect the original US colonies from attack from the British.
Ok... history lesson for you...
The units that fought the Redcoats under Smith and Pitcairn at Lexington and Concorde? In April 1775? They were militia.
So clearly the right to form militia predates the 19th century.
Additionally, the US Army was founded by the Continental Congress on June 14 1775.
So clearly, there WAS a central army in the 1800s.
Any other lessons you need? I may have to start charging.
Ok, local Militia's were in place many many years before a centralized Army was ever founded. And the reason they were in place, was to protect the local areas and colonies from attacks. .
Thank you for confirming my facts.. Militia were in place to protect themselves from attacks from the British... The people who fought the British during the Battle of Lexington and Concord were a group of local militia people calling themselves Minutemen. They were not part of a national army.
During Revelutionary War, there was no central army available at the time that could protect the all colonies... so each state had there own militia in place to fight internal & external battles in the state and could be called upon on a national level... but it wasn't required that local state militia to join the national army.... thus starting the National Guard...
But now there is a national army in place, and if a state is ever attacked.. the centralized army or National Guard is called in to protect the state... not the local militia group.
-
Ok, local Militia's were in place many many years before a centralized Army was ever founded. And the reason they were in place, was to protect the local areas and colonies from attacks.
Among other things.
Whats your point?
Thank you for confirming my facts..
Most people will think that I refuted your "facts".
each state had there own militia in place to fight internal & external battles in the state and could be called upon on a national level... but it wasn't required that local state militia to join the national army.... thus starting the National Guard...
No, the National Guard was created in 1903. Its part of the standing army. The militia, as you describe it, is/was as it always was - militia.
But now there is a national army in place, and if a state is ever attacked.. the centralized army or National Guard is called in to protect the state... not the local militia group.
Ok...
Whats your point?
Several states have militias. Ohio is one of them.
The United States has a militia, as described in the US code. I, like all other able bodied males of age, am part of that militia as well.
-
But now there is a national army in place, and if a state is ever attacked.. the centralized army or National Guard is called in to protect the state... not the local militia group.
Ok...
Whats your point?
Several states have militias. Ohio is one of them.
The United States has a militia, as described in the US code. I, like all other able bodied males of age, am part of that militia as well.
If the main goal of a Militia is the security of the state they are in? Then why is a Militia still needed in the 21th century?
Cause if the state is attacked by Redcoats again... the Army or National Guard will be called in to help protect the state. Not the local Militia.
-
If the main goal of a Militia is the security of the state they are in? Then why is a Militia still needed in the 21th century?
Fale premise. The militia has 4 roles, three of which are described in the Constitution:
-repel invasions and assist the standing army in same
-enforce the laws of the land
-put down rebellion and insurrection
-provide a deterrent and/or defense from tyranny
So, even your most basic premise is flawed, in that even though there is a standing army, the militia is there to assist it in the defense of the country - and even if it were the case that the militia isnt necessary in that role, there are other jobs that they do.
Cause if the state is attacked by Redcoats again... the Army or National Guard will be called in to help protect the state. Not the local Militia.
Same false premise. See above.
-
-repel invasions and assist the standing army in same
-enforce the laws of the land
-put down rebellion and insurrection
-provide a deterrent and/or defense from tyranny
Your too funny... keep beliving that's todays purpose of a Militia. Militia's are not regulated nor any they above any law. Sure it's your right to form a Militia, but I'm 100% positive that if any of the items happen above, the Army or National Guard will not be needing your assistance. Did you know the National Guard was form as a replacement for the local Militia?
Anyways, I'm glad I don't live near you and if a "rebellion or insurrection" does take place... I won't be calling your Militia to come and protect me. Nor will I be running to your bunker to hide.
Just wondering, does your Militia have a guy that "swings a sack of doorknobs?'
-
If the main goal of a Militia is the security of the state they are in? Then why is a Militia still needed in the 21th century?
Fale premise.
One last thing... Funny how today, one of the main reasons local Militia's were created in the 1700's, is now a "False Promise"
-
Your too funny... keep beliving that's todays purpose of a Militia.
Dont tell me - tell the guys that wrote the Constitution:
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"
--US Constitution Article I section 8:14
Militia's are not regulated nor any they above any law.
Like I said - the Ohio revised Code and the US Code define the militia of the state of Ohio and the Militia of the United States, respectively. They are creatures of current law; that you didnt know about them until now doesnt mean they dont exist.
Sure it's your right to form a Militia
So, what are you complaining about?
Did you know the National Guard was form as a replacement for the local Militia?
The National Guard is part of the standing army. It was created under Congress' power to raise armies, not regulate the militia. It is a reserve components subject absolutely to federal authority that can be called up by a state governor under cetain conditions.
It is an entity entirely seperate from the militia.
If it were to "replace" the militia, then there would be no current federal law concerning same. The most recent revision to the US Code regarding the militia was made in 1992. So much for that.
Anyways, I'm glad I don't live near you and if a "rebellion or insurrection" does take place... I won't be calling your Militia to come and protect me. Nor will I be running to your bunker to hide.
As I said: Thats good. I dont need the deadweight.
Anything else?
-
Anything else?
Not from you.... I hope you enjoy the rest of the BYOAC boards.
-
Not from you.... I hope you enjoy the rest of the BYOAC boards
Just remember:
I didnt give up trying to teach-
-you gave up trying to learn.
-
Just remember:
I didnt give up trying to teach-
-you gave up trying to learn.
Thanks for advise "Jack Handy."
-
How about them Cubs?
-
How about them Cubs?
Well after I used my new AK with folding stock and suppressor I managed to get one after emptying my 40 round clip into its head. The meat was pretty good but its a shame i can't mount its head on my wall.
That was a joke. ;D
-
you're all f**ked up in the USA
little people feeling big with guns in their hands
-
If you're exercising it collectively, then yes - you need an "Assault weapon".
I'm glad I don't live near you.
Me too - for if it ever becomes necessary to collectively exercise the right to arms, I dont want to have to carry your deadweight.
do you live in oklahoma by any chance?
or waco, texas?
-
you're all f**ked up in the USA
little people feeling big with guns in their hands
I don't think there is anything more pathetic than someone happily oppressed.
-
The part that escapes me in this whole forum, and I've pointed this out before, is why is that Foreigners (those not citizens of the US) Get so hacked off by this?
I don't care what the rest of the worlds' countries think. I don't see why it even concerns them. After all, they don't live in the USA?? How could this issue possibly mean anything to the UK, Austrailia, or Canada?
Sorry rest of the world, but this is an internal issue, not an international law dispute. Y'all enjoy your culture, we'll enjoy ours.
-
The part that escapes me in this whole forum, and I've pointed this out before, is why is that Foreigners (those not citizens of the US) Get so hacked off by this?
I don't care what the rest of the worlds' countries think. I don't see why it even concerns them. After all, they don't live in the USA?? How could this issue possibly mean anything to the UK, Austrailia, or Canada?
Sorry rest of the world, but this is an internal issue, not an international law dispute. Y'all enjoy your culture, we'll enjoy ours.
Why does the poor care how the rich spend thier money?
Because they're jealous.
We have rights, and it makes feel better to trash talk those rights.
-
The part that escapes me in this whole forum, and I've pointed this out before, is why is that Foreigners (those not citizens of the US) Get so hacked off by this?
I don't care what the rest of the worlds' countries think. I don't see why it even concerns them. After all, they don't live in the USA?? How could this issue possibly mean anything to the UK, Austrailia, or Canada?
Sorry rest of the world, but this is an internal issue, not an international law dispute. Y'all enjoy your culture, we'll enjoy ours.
since when have you yanks given a damn about anyone else?
i don't mind you having as many guns as you like - as long as you shoot your own stupid selves.
just don't be surprised when you keep getting more Columbine attrocities.
and another thing...what about some pollution controls to help stop/reduce global warming?
-
The part that escapes me in this whole forum, and I've pointed this out before, is why is that Foreigners (those not citizens of the US) Get so hacked off by this?
I don't care what the rest of the worlds' countries think. I don't see why it even concerns them. After all, they don't live in the USA?? How could this issue possibly mean anything to the UK, Austrailia, or Canada?
Sorry rest of the world, but this is an internal issue, not an international law dispute. Y'all enjoy your culture, we'll enjoy ours.
Cause what happens in the US filters to the rest of the world... Especially when you live right above the US.
-
The part that escapes me in this whole forum, and I've pointed this out before, is why is that Foreigners (those not citizens of the US) Get so hacked off by this?
I don't care what the rest of the worlds' countries think. I don't see why it even concerns them. After all, they don't live in the USA?? How could this issue possibly mean anything to the UK, Austrailia, or Canada?
Sorry rest of the world, but this is an internal issue, not an international law dispute. Y'all enjoy your culture, we'll enjoy ours.
since when have you yanks given a damn about anyone else?
i don't mind you having as many guns as you like - as long as you shoot your own stupid selves.
just don't be surprised when you keep getting more Columbine attrocities.
and another thing...what about some pollution controls to help stop/reduce global warming?
Are you SO f'ing stupid that you don't know about WWII? If us yanks didn't care about anyone else, Hitler might have pre-emptively aborted dummies like by taking your grandparents out of the gene pool.
Are you bitter that a bunch of yank farmers kicked your trained militarys ass not once, but TWICE? Do you get all of your gun control arguments from Michael Moore movies?
Wake up, man. People like you are the reason the US exists. Just leave us alone, you tool!
-
Just leave us alone, you tool!
That's funny.
Funny, because it's true.
-
Are you SO f'ing stupid that you don't know about WWII? If us yanks didn't care about anyone else, Hitler might have pre-emptively aborted dummies like by taking your grandparents out of the gene pool.
There was more then one group fighting the Germans WAY BEFORE the US ever got involved in WWII. The war was won for many reasons... not just because the US got involved.
-
since when have you yanks given a damn about anyone else?
1917.
i don't mind you having as many guns as you like - as long as you shoot your own stupid selves.
Oh, THATS compassionate.
just don't be surprised when you keep getting more Columbine attrocities.
Columbine was when? April 1999? 5 years ago? Thats the most recent. "More"? You make is souns like it sound the rise.
and another thing...what about some pollution controls to help stop/reduce global warming?
Talk to India and China. They pollute more than we do.
-
rchadd,
Well, then you don't have a dog in the fight. There are attrocities like that all over the world, it's not limited to the US.
Most don't believe that global warming is real. Go to www.junkscience.com. There has to be evidence of it.
The US has lead the world in developing the technology to do just that.
Do you have some evidence that we are the cause of polution in the world? I think your scorn for pollutors would be better served directed at the Russians and the Chineese and Mexico.
Why Blame the yanks? All we did was invent the technology.
GGkoul, You might be right. You might be right. But IF the debate comes to your neck of the woods it will be up to you. That's a big IF. What happens in the US filters to the rest of the world? So are we the trendsetter?
Was Canada in WWII? I only read American History. It was required. I do recall that the Germans were winning and continued to win for 2 years after the US joined. But we did contribute a lot to VE day. And then there was that thing about stopping the Japaneese that we did. Kinda saved another 50 to 100 K lives in a continued battle in the pacific.
TOK,
Remember the UK supported us in our latest struggle and we owe rchadd and his country a great debt of gratitude for that.
-
There was more then one group fighting the Germans WAY BEFORE the US ever got involved in WWII.
They were also losing in a big way.
Of course the Russians would have probably beat the Germans - but then, who was going to keep the Russians from rolling over all of Western Europe?
The war was won for many reasons... not just because the US got involved.
And who was going to carry the fight to the Japanese, if not the US?
-
Was Canada in WWII?
Yes. They fought as Commonwealth troops under the British.
But we did contribute a lot to VE day
Thats an... understatement :o
And then there was that thing about stopping the Japaneese that we did. Kinda saved another 50 to 100 K lives in a continued battle in the pacific.
The US did this, almost singlehandedly.
And the US decision to drop the atom bomb saved more lives than any other event of the war.
-
There was more then one group fighting the Germans WAY BEFORE the US ever got involved in WWII.
They were also losing in a big way.
Of course the Russians would have probably beat the Germans - but then, who was going to keep the Russians from rolling over all of Western Europe?
Regardless... it was a great effort from all countries involved to defeat the Germans.
The war was won for many reasons... not just because the US got involved.
And who was going to carry the fight to the Japanese, if not the US?
Japan attacked the US. And I think the Pacific war only between US & Japan.
-
Was Canada in WWII?
Yes. They fought as Commonwealth troops under the British.
Canadian soliders liberated many cities, villages & town all around Europe. Lots of cities have memorials for the Canadian soliders that died to free the cities from the Germans.
Also, Canadian soliders were the only ones to land on the beach on Normandy when and where they were suppose to. The took Juno beach and were able to cut off German supply lines from sending support to the beaches.
Many countries sons died for our freedom today. And that shouldn't be forgotten and I hope we never have to send anyones sons & daughers to fight a World War again.
-
and another thing...what about some pollution controls to help stop/reduce global warming?
Well, according to this statistic:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_nox_emi_per_pop_are
The UK is the 4th largest global polluter, and the US is number 13.
Really, is it so hard to get some facts (jaded or not) to back up your arguments?
-
and another thing...what about some pollution controls to help stop/reduce global warming?
Well, according to this statistic:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_nox_emi_per_pop_are
The UK is the 4th largest global polluter, and the US is number 13.
Really, is it so hard to get some facts (jaded or not) to back up your arguments?
HMM.... In CO2 gas which is the largest greenhouse gas thats affecting global warming...
US Leads by a far margin...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi
Check your stats..
-
Check your stats..
Yeah.
How many people were murdered in the US by an "assault weapon"?
Oh wait - you've written your argument against "assault weapons" off as indefensible. Never mind.
-
Check your stats..
How many people were murdered in the US by an "assault weapon"?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap
Doesn't break down what type of weapson was used.
-
I've got the solution that will help all who hate the U.S.
We emit CO2 whenever we breathe.
All of us from the U.S. will stop breathing.
Less CO2, less filthy 'mercanz, better world ;D
I'm off to my trash barrel to burn hundreds of plastic 2 liter bottles now...mebbe I'll drive the 50 feet to it, lemme fire up the Hummer
-
Total Crimes: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri
Total Assualts: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass
Total Burglaries : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur
Total Rapes: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap
Take what you want from these stats... as people easly find stats against these.
-
Doesn't break down what type of weapson was used.
No, but this does:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-10.xls
Table 2.10
-
I'm sorry but is there any point (other than going 'yeehaw!') to firing at landscape? Has it declared war on Americans? Was that particular hill the elusive 21st hijacker in 9/11?
Go ride rollercoasters instead of poisoning the hills with lead.
Idiots.
-
I'm sorry but is there any point (other than going 'yeehaw!') to firing at landscape? Has it declared war on Americans? Was that particular hill the elusive 21st hijacker in 9/11?
Go ride rollercoasters instead of poisoning the hills with lead.
Idiots.
Now, I'm pretty cool with the way things are so far, but your ignorance and apparent lack of ANY form of searching for an answer or your decided hatred towards guns of any sort lead me to believe the only person deserving of the "Idiot" moniker is yourself here.
Thank goodness you rode in on the white horse with the (gunless) cavalry ::) shaking your old-man fist and giving us a toothless tongue lashing, telling us to "go ride rollercoasters, ya whippersnappers!".
I don't own a gun, haven't owned a gun, but grew up with them in my house because my dad long ago taught me safety and respect when dealing with them. I do NOT go hunting, EVER, nor do I target practice, but what I DO know, idiot is that you do NOT simply go around firing at the landscape.
#1 - bullets ARE NOT cheap idiot so you don't fire them off haphazardly becasue
#2 - you may hit something that, idiot, ricochets back and hits you, perhaps fatally.
Now, the part about yelling "Yeehaw", maybe you've seen a few too many movies where this is done, but no one wanders around shooting off their gun into the air like some Dukes Of Hazzard re-run.
If you'd like to help to change some opinions, perhaps even yours, idiot, then inform yourself, and come here to debate like the rest of these people have done. You coming here to tell everyone who disagrees with you to "stop it and go do something else" and then ending your "enlightened missive" by calling those who don't agree with you an idiot...it does nothing but to verify the stereotype of anti-gun nuts.
You also offend people who COULD argue your side (more intelligently, idiot, than you are able to) to help someone see a difference.
I AM such a person. I am "physically" on your side (don't own, don't have in the house, don't hunt, don't care to have 'em), but am "mentally" on their side (I see that it's a simple freedom of rights issue in the U.S.).
Next time before you press "post", skip a button or two and hit "reset form". THAT reply would be more well recieved than the tripe you posted above. You're making me re-think NOT owning a gun now, just because of your sheer ignorance. IDIOT
-
Oh, and fredster, he's another one you won't like. Unlike danny, boss is an Australian who LACKS a sense of humor, and thinks his nose is best placed squarely into American politics.
He SO dislikes me and my ilk that he thinks I should be on Saint's hit list...although it seems that Saint seems to have a better handle on what's friendly debate than boss, much to his chagrin ::)
-
no one wanders around shooting off their gun into the air like some Dukes Of Hazzard re-run.
I don't think they used to fire their guns in the air in Dukes of Hazzard.
-
i did hear somewhere that world-wide there are something like 300 deaths a year and many more injuries from falling bullets!! many of them in the middle-east where it's the norm to fire lots of guns in the air during celebrations (those guys are more gun-crazy than the yanks!)
-
There are a lot of those kinds of deaths. On New Years eve we take out our guns and shoot them in the air too.
I believe in Detroit they do that and there are occasionally deaths and injuries over it.
-
no one wanders around shooting off their gun into the air like some Dukes Of Hazzard re-run.
I don't think they used to fire their guns in the air in Dukes of Hazzard.
It was a bow and arrow with a stick of dynamite.
-
I'm sorry but is there any point (other than going 'yeehaw!') to firing at landscape? Has it declared war on Americans? Was that particular hill the elusive 21st hijacker in 9/11?
Go ride rollercoasters instead of poisoning the hills with lead.
Idiots.
Now, I'm pretty cool with the way things are so far, but your ignorance and apparent lack of ANY form of searching for an answer or your decided hatred towards guns of any sort lead me to believe the only person deserving of the "Idiot" moniker is yourself here.
Thank goodness you rode in on the white horse with the (gunless) cavalry ::) shaking your old-man fist and giving us a toothless tongue lashing, telling us to "go ride rollercoasters, ya whippersnappers!".
I don't own a gun, haven't owned a gun, but grew up with them in my house because my dad long ago taught me safety and respect when dealing with them. I do NOT go hunting, EVER, nor do I target practice, but what I DO know, idiot is that you do NOT simply go around firing at the landscape.
#1 - bullets ARE NOT cheap idiot so you don't fire them off haphazardly becasue
#2 - you may hit something that, idiot, ricochets back and hits you, perhaps fatally.
Now, the part about yelling "Yeehaw", maybe you've seen a few too many movies where this is done, but no one wanders around shooting off their gun into the air like some Dukes Of Hazzard re-run.
If you'd like to help to change some opinions, perhaps even yours, idiot, then inform yourself, and come here to debate like the rest of these people have done. You coming here to tell everyone who disagrees with you to "stop it and go do something else" and then ending your "enlightened missive" by calling those who don't agree with you an idiot...it does nothing but to verify the stereotype of anti-gun nuts.
You also offend people who COULD argue your side (more intelligently, idiot, than you are able to) to help someone see a difference.
I AM such a person. I am "physically" on your side (don't own, don't have in the house, don't hunt, don't care to have 'em), but am "mentally" on their side (I see that it's a simple freedom of rights issue in the U.S.).
Next time before you press "post", skip a button or two and hit "reset form". THAT reply would be more well recieved than the tripe you posted above. You're making me re-think NOT owning a gun now, just because of your sheer ignorance. IDIOT
I wasn't saying owning guns is idiotic or anything like that. I was saying what those people were doing IN THE VIDEO (from the first post) was idiotic. Shooting up the landscape for no reason. No sorry. I meant annihilating the landscape with sub-machine guns for no reason.
I happen to like sports shooting, such as in the olympics, or target shooting at a range (in Australia we don't get much of it but I did it once in Europe under well controlled conditions), but those people in the video were simply misguided. Or idiotic if you prefer. And that opinion stands. No offence was meant to you Drew or anyone else who is a responsible gun owner.
-
Oh, and fredster, he's another one you won't like. Unlike danny, boss is an Australian who LACKS a sense of humor, and thinks his nose is best placed squarely into American politics.
He SO dislikes me and my ilk that he thinks I should be on Saint's hit list...although it seems that Saint seems to have a better handle on what's friendly debate than boss, much to his chagrin ::)
No sense of humour?? I beg to differ Sir.
I call thee to a duel. Pistols at ready you scoundrel... Sir.
PS:You're on Saint's hit list? How many is that now? >:(
-
no one wanders around shooting off their gun into the air like some Dukes Of Hazzard re-run.
I don't think they used to fire their guns in the air in Dukes of Hazzard.
might I point you in the direction of one Sherrif Roscoe P Coltrane....koo kee kew kew kew.
Might I also add to the list one phat bazturd, Boss Hogg
And making an occasional appearance, one Uncle Jesse.
You, sir, are without merit in your DoH assessment.
BEGONE ;)
-
I beg to differ Sir.
I call thee to a duel. Pistols at ready you scoundrel... Sir.
Danny, I give you exhibit A. We 'Mercans ARE NOT the only ones to use "Sir" in indignation! You tried to pawn that off on us...weasel! OFF with your cupholders! ;D
-
i did hear somewhere that world-wide there are something like 300 deaths a year and many more injuries from falling bullets!! many of them in the middle-east where it's the norm to fire lots of guns in the air during celebrations (those guys are more gun-crazy than the yanks!)
Holy Crap! I can't believe you brought this up. I totally have personal experience (kind of) with this. Bare in mind that this does not inform my position on gun control in any significant way. It's just interesting and a bit amazing and sad.
So yeah....while I was growing up, there was this kid, same age as me, who lived down the street from me, about two blocks. I'd known him since I was seven years old (though we weren't really friends beyond elementary school. But we always went to the same school and church. So anyway, when we were in tenth grade (or possibly eleventh), this would have been about 1995 or so, he walked out onto his back porch one day and just as he stepped out the door, BLAM!!!!!. He's screaming in pain, covering his eye....blood streaming.
A .22 bullet that had been fired from a rifle into the air like 2 miles away (they figured it out with all their crazy algebra) had dropped down, bounced off the patio and lodged itself right in his eyeball. It was going so slow that the slug actually stopped in his eyeball and spun around. The guy has one glass eye now.
I'm totally serious. One second stepping out onto his back porch, the next second WHAM!!! Bullet in the eye. Freak accident.
-
So he started the whole "it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye"?
-
So he started the whole "it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye"?
damn, that cracks me up!
-
This happens all the time in the Greek island of Crete. Especially during wedding and when Greece won the Euro Cup this year.
-
I beg to differ Sir.
I call thee to a duel. Pistols at ready you scoundrel... Sir.
Danny, I give you exhibit A. We 'Mercans ARE NOT the only ones to use "Sir" in indignation! You tried to pawn that off on us...weasel! OFF with your cupholders! ;D
I'm a terrible example. Please don't hold me up to public scrutiny again. Ta. :)
-
Danny, I give you exhibit A. We 'Mercans ARE NOT the only ones to use "Sir" in indignation! You tried to pawn that off on us...weasel! OFF with your cupholders! ;D
I'm a terrible example. Please don't hold me up to public scrutiny again. Ta. :)
*holds boss up for public scrutiny yet again*
And see, when the rubber meets the road, he turns tail and heads for the mountains!
What a FINE EXAMPLE I found!
;D
-
Danny, I give you exhibit A. We 'Mercans ARE NOT the only ones to use "Sir" in indignation! You tried to pawn that off on us...weasel! OFF with your cupholders! ;D
I'm a terrible example. Please don't hold me up to public scrutiny again. Ta. :)
*holds boss up for public scrutiny yet again*
And see, when the rubber meets the road, he turns tail and heads for the mountains!
What a FINE EXAMPLE I found!
;D
You forgot the third 's' in my nick (not to mention the '7') and once again, don't hold me up up as an example. I'm shy. :-[
Cheers
-
Someone will have to let me know what my hit list is - first I've heard of it :)
PS:You're on Saint's hit list? How many is that now? >:(
-
Gimme a break Saint. Like we don't all know that you've lured us all here under the pretense of building arcade cabinets so you can kill us. Using the name Saint for your avatar is an insultingly sophemoric ruse which you think will throw us off your murderous activities.
I think it's hilarious when people suggest that those in other countries have no business putting their nose in American politics simply because they get no vote. That's ridiculous. It's like suggesting that American felons shouldn't be concerned about American politics simply because they've been disenfranchised. Or, for that matter, that I shouldn't care about American politics simply because I effectively get no vote.
The ironic thing is that those who think that our Canadian and Aussi friends in these threads are out of their element seem to usually be the same ones who are most nationalistic in the way they view America. They certainly believe that America is the most powerful, and most important country in the world. They believe that what America does affects every country in the world in a significant way. They believe that the state of America's economy affects the world economy more than any other country's. And they are probably right on all of those points.
But, how in hell can you believe all those things, while simultaneously believing that other people, who are clearly affected by American politics, should not be discussing and debating them? It's absurd.
-
I agree with shmokes, people from countries outside of the US who complain about US politics should be treated like American felons.
-
That's it, you're on the list!
Gimme a break Saint. Like we don't all know that you've lured us all here under the pretense of building arcade cabinets so you can kill us. Using the name Saint for your avatar is an insultingly sophemoric ruse which you think will throw us off your murderous activities.
-
Shmokes is dead on. We live in a global community, a global economy. We use our economic and military might to influence events and direction in other countries. Note, I'm not saying that's bad (in fact, be it ever so much a cliche, I think with great power comes great responsibliity and we should be active in the international scene. How/when then become the points of debate...).
As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy, and even to attempt to influence our actions through above-board public means, such as this forum (it obviously doesn't mean anything ludicrious like allowing a foreign party to buy a politician, lest anyone twist what I'm saying into meaning that). What they don't have is a right to vote and make the final decisions in our country. This isn't any different than how we view and treat other countries. I think it's a good thing.
--- saint
I think it's hilarious when people suggest that those in other countries have no business putting their nose in American politics simply because they get no vote. That's ridiculous. It's like suggesting that American felons shouldn't be concerned about American politics simply because they've been disenfranchised. Or, for that matter, that I shouldn't care about American politics simply because I effectively get no vote.
The ironic thing is that those who think that our Canadian and Aussi friends in these threads are out of their element seem to usually be the same ones who are most nationalistic in the way they view America. They certainly believe that America is the most powerful, and most important country in the world. They believe that what America does affects every country in the world in a significant way. They believe that the state of America's economy affects the world economy more than any other country's. And they are probably right on all of those points.
But, how in hell can you believe all those things, while simultaneously believing that other people, who are clearly affected by American politics, should not be discussing and debating them? It's absurd.
-
As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy
Like everyone else, the have the right to free speech.
This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.
This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.
-
Lol, I love these gun discussion threads. They're almost as amusing as the Ipac vs Keywiz threads! But of course TA Pilot will have no idea what I'm talking about because he has no interest whatsoever in arcade controls!
My main reason for posting is to back up hunky_artist. I was originally going to post in the "Clinton Gun Ban" thread but it's been locked. Why? It was just beginning to liven up!
I also live in Britain and I can confirm that in normal life you simply never ever come across guns. No amount of dubious statistics obtained from the internet is going to change this fact.
The only guns you can obtain in Britain without a licence are low powered air rifles and they are generally pretty pathetic. Probably the only way you could kill someone with one would be to shoot directly into someone's eye at close range.
You can only obtain a licence for a more powerful gun by convincing the authorities that you have a legitimate reason for owning one e.g. you're a farmer, belong to a gun club etc.
Oh, and incidentally the desire to strut around like John Wayne would not be regarded as a legitimate reason....
The argument that guns should be legal because other potentially dangerous things such as cars, knives and rope are legal is pretty dubious. Most guns manufactured today are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill human beings. All of the other things listed also have other purposes. Ok, a few guns are designed for hunting animals, but those types of gun are legal (although heavily regulated) in most western countries in recognition of that legitimate use.
I'd be very interested to know where (if anywhere) T A Pilot would draw the line. Does he for instance think it is ok for citizens to own their own private nuclear weapons? After all nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people!! I'm deliberately choosing an extreme example to illustrate how dubious this line of reasoning is.
There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns. If a country that allowed mass gun ownership was invaded, it would be very difficult for the invading army to subjugate an armed civilian population. A good example of this scenario is the current situation in Iraq.
But for me the price is too high, and in any case I don't think it's likely that the USA (or indeed any other western country) is going to be invaded any time soon.
The US constitution was written in an age when there was very little organised law enforcement. The right to bear arms was a practical necessity back in those days but not any more. And of course guns were much less powerful then as well.
Of course it is for Americans to decide how they wish to run their society. But I sincerely hope that we in Britain continue to heavily regulate gun ownership.
Incidentally, and slightly off topic, I also believe that most drugs (both prescription and recreational) should be legalised. Does this contradict my stance on gun control? I don't think so.
My philosophy is that people should be able to do exactly what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.
Drugs (broadly speaking) only harm the people who choose to take them. However guns (again broadly speaking) tend to harm other people.
-
The argument that guns should be legal because other potentially dangerous things such as cars, knives and rope are legal is pretty dubious.
Why?
Most guns manufactured today are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill human beings.
This is exactly why we have a right to own and use them. Therefore, this argument doesnt do anything to de-legitimatize these guns.
All of the other things listed also have other purposes. Ok, a few guns are designed for hunting animals, but those types of gun are legal (although heavily regulated) in most western countries in recognition of that legitimate use.
And oddly enough, hunting has nothing to do with our right to own a use guns.
I'd be very interested to know where (if anywhere) T A Pilot would draw the line.
Thats easy - any weapon that qualifies as an "arm" under the context of the 2nd Amendment. The test for this qualification is found in US v Miller (1939)
There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns.
Not that this means anything...
The right to bear arms was a practical necessity back in those days but not any more.
Yes - there is no longer a need for people to have the means to kill other people in the exercise of the right to self-defense. After all, there's no one that would ever cause harm to seomeone else.
And of course guns were much less powerful then as well.
Which is completely irrelevant. The constitution is technology blind. Arguing that the bill of rights protects only what existed in 1791 means that the 1st amendment doesnt protect CNN amd the 4th doesnt protect your telephone.
My philosophy is that people should be able to do exactly what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.
And so I should not have the right to own an M-60, because...?
-
The only gun that matters....
(http://www.act-labs.com/productimages/132_x.jpg)
-
My main reason for posting is to back up hunky_artist. I was originally going to post in the "Clinton Gun Ban" thread but it's been locked. Why? It was just beginning to liven up!
(282 Replies) - (10 replies by me) = 272 Legit Replies on a topic I started.
That's a personal high score.
-
As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy
Like everyone else, the have the right to free speech.
This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.
This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.
Are you nuts, TA? This is a discussion forum. Nobody in here, whether American or otherwise, can force a given set of rights on you. We're discussing the way things are and the way things should be. Naturally there are varying ideas about both.
The right to be listened to? You mean as opposed to the right that I, as an American, have to be listened to? What the hell? The validity of a person's argument when they are discussing the way things are and the way things should be doesn't hinge on where they were born. Certainly where a person is born will inform his socialization and how he views given situations, but to suggest that because a person is born in another country automatically invalidates their opinion about American politics ignores the obvious fact that Danny knows a helluva lot more than the average American about American history and government (past and present). Not only that, be he is affected by American politics and so would be foolish not to be concerned about them.
Something tells me that you don't mind when Americans concern themselves with the politics in other countries that might affect us. Afgahnistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, North Korea, (the former) Yugoslavia, Cuba and Iraq spring immediately to mind.
If I incorrectly state that I, as an indigent American, have the right to appointed counsel in all cases where I am a defendant, I am wrong even though I am an American. If a Brit or Aussi or anybody else corrects me, pointing out that I do not have a right to counsel in civil cases or in front of the Supreme Court, they are right even though they are foreigners.
-
Sure - you have a right not to listen to someone's opinion (I would present to you however that to simply not listen to someone's opinion is somewhat narrow minded - choosing not to agree with someone is everyone's perogative, but choosing simply not to even listen means deliberately deciding not to see all sides of an issue before making up your mind. I would hope that everyone who is prepared to make an important decision, such as voting, would want to hear all sides of an issue before making up their minds, or at least be willing to consider another point of view that might change your mind. If your opinion is right for you, then listening to someone else's won't change your mind. If your opinion *can* be changed then it means you are not as devoted to your original opinion as you thought and really should be listening to alternative positions to discover what your opinion truly is).
What I have heard repeated several times on these forums recently however, and I am not directing this at you as frankly I don't recall specifically who has said it, is that someone who isn't an American has no right to even speak up on American issues. That's a far different stance than agreeing they have the right to express their opinion whether you agree with it or not.
I fail to see how listening to someone else's perspective can ever hurt. Agree with them and you've enlightened yourself to a new position. Disagree and you've lost nothing but time. Choose not to listen at all and you've decided deliberately to choose ignorance. Ignorance, by the way, is not a put down although it's a sad condition to be in. Ignorance is "The condition of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ignorance)
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it." Add to that: "I may not agree with what you say, but it's in my best self-interest to hear what you have to say."
--- saint
As we affect the world, the world has every right to weigh in with an opinion on our politics and policy
Like everyone else, the have the right to free speech.
This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.
This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.
-
Nobody in here, whether American or otherwise, can force a given set of rights on you.
Funny. I dont remember saying they were going to or were trying to.
The right to be listened to? You mean as opposed to the right that I, as an American, have to be listened to? What the hell?
I'm sorry. I dont recall saying that you or any other American has that right.
The validity of a person's argument when they are discussing the way things are and the way things should be doesn't hinge on where they were born.
Nope. It hinges on how well they can supprt their argument.
Something tells me that you don't mind when Americans concern themselves with the politics in other countries that might affect us. Afgahnistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, North Korea, (the former) Yugoslavia, Cuba and Iraq spring immediately to mind.
Thats right. Our government does this, because we gave it the job to protect us. If part of that protection is derived from 'concering itself with the politics' of another nation, thats fine by me. What do you think foreign policy is?
If I incorrectly state that I, as an indigent American, have the right to appointed counsel in all cases where I am a defendant, I am wrong even though I am an American.
Thats right. Very good.
If a Brit or Aussi or anybody else corrects me, pointing out that I do not have a right to counsel in civil cases or in front of the Supreme Court, they are right even though they are foreigners.
Thats right. Very good.
Whats your point?
-
TA, I know you aren't dumb. Don't respond to my post pretending that it exists in a vacuum. Why don't you try putting it into context and apply it to your post that I was responding to. Will it help if I separate it all out for you, point-by-excruciating-point?
You said:
Like everyone else, the[y] have the right to free speech.
This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to. (note: by they, you were referring to non-Americans)
To which I responded:
The right to be listened to? You mean as opposed to the right that I, as an American, have to be listened to? What the hell? The validity of a person's argument when they are discussing the way things are and the way things should be doesn't hinge on where they were born.
And then you said:
I'm sorry. I dont recall saying that you or any other American has that right.
I'm sorry. Perhaps now you recall deliberately implying it. If, afterall, you are using the fact that they don't have a right to be listened to as an argument for why foreigners should abstain from entering American politics arguments, it kinda has to mean that Americans do have a right to be listened to, doesn't it?
Then, after that, you said:
This is especially true when they try to tell us Americans what rights we have and dont have.
To which I responded by giving an example of how it can be perfectly valid when a foreigner tries to tell us what rights we have, such as when I mistakenly state that I have a right to appointed counsel in all court cases. Am I helping you to tie these things together?
I further went on to criticize your statement about it being inappropriate for other countries trying to tell us Americans what rights we have and don't have by pointing out the hypocricy of making such a statement while supporting the very same behavior of America toward other countries. This seems to be lost on you. If a foreigner posts in a discussion forum about what we should and shouldn't do you seem to think that they are acting inappropriately, but if we send our military into a sovereign nation to impose by force on that nation what we think they should and shouldn't do, that's just foreign policy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should never send our military in, I'm commenting on the irony and absurdity of your above statement.
I'm not going to go any further, quoting each and every thing you said in your last post. I find it an obnoxious way to have an argument, and I seriously shouldn't have to hold your hand. It's also a disingenuous way to have an argument -- you use it, like you did with your first statement in your last post, to take a single line out of the context of, say, the rest of the paragraph it belongs in. You're a big boy. The things that I've said here apply to every point you raised in your last post. I think if you try really hard you can figure out where everything fits.
-
I'm sorry. Perhaps now you recall deliberately implying it.
No. This is you inferrence. NO one has the right to be heard, including Americans talking about American politics.
Now, I'd argue that Americans have greater standing in any such discussion, but thats doesnt equate to a right to be heard.
To which I responded by giving an example of how it can be perfectly valid when a foreigner tries to tell us what rights we have, such as when I mistakenly state that I have a right to appointed counsel in all court cases. Am I helping you to tie these things together?
This is a little different than the context of the conversation that had been had previous. An argument had been made that because the right to arms doesnt exist over yonder, that because its 'not needed' over there, that its obsolete here. While they have the right to make that statement, they dont have the standing to judge whats 'needed' here, especially when their frame of reference is their life, over yonder.
If a foreigner posts in a discussion forum about what we should and shouldn't do you seem to think that they are acting inappropriately
Again, it depends entirely on context. Note that I continue to argue that any such person has a right to state any opinion - the real questions are why does their opinion count, and on what grounds do they state it?
So, while an Englishman may very well be able to correctly state that you do not have a right to an attorney in every instance, he cannot correctly state that you do not have a right to arms - because that right is 'not needed' over in the UK and is therefore obsolete.
Now that your erroneous inferrence is out of the way - is there anything else you'd like to say?
but if we send our military into a sovereign nation to impose by force on that nation what we think they should and shouldn't do, that's just foreign policy.
Thats right.
Foreign policy actions arent a statement of opinion. They are an action taken to achieve a pilitical goal. The "right" to take this ac tion derives from oursovereignty; the right to oppose any such action comes from the opposing sovereignty.
This is something different than a statement of opinion during the course of free speech. People have the right to speak and to ignore those speaking. Countries have the right to act and oppose actions from other countries.
The difference is, of course, when you force a foreign policy position on another country, you -force- them to 'listen'.
See, internationally, "rights" of a state exist only insofar as they can be enforced by a state. Any state can claim they have the "right" to something - the question is, can they enforce it. Iraq claimed to have a "right" to Kuwait - and they werent able to enforce that right.
So, internationally, countries have the right to speak, and -can- force others to listen... and therefore, trying to make a free speech point with foreign policy doesnt really work.
-
Sorry I am a lazy American, so can someone find the statistics on the gun related deaths by texas citizens with a conciled handgun liscence. I live in East Texas and never have heard anything about this group of people starting trouble w/ the law. I know for sure not everyone of those citizens can be totally law abiding. And there has to be some drunk redneecks in the bunch to.
-
Oh my god! Then why did you even say anything? Do you even have any friends? Why do you feel the need to compulsively argue with absolutely everything a liberal says, even if he doesn't say something you disagree with. Consider for a second a summary of our argument:
1- I read one of Drew's posts in which he said derisively, "...who thinks his nose is best placed squarely into American politics," while speaking of an aussie.
2- I wrote a post suggesting that it makes perfect sense for people in other countries to discuss the pros and cons of U.S. policy because it significantly affects them.
3- You posted, in response, saying (this is a paraphrase, but I'm pretty sure I get the gist right) that they do have freedom of speech so technically can participate in American political discussions, but that freedom of speech doesn't automatically make their opinions valid or translate into a requirement that they be listened to.
IS THAT IT????? Jesus, TA, if all you had to say is that a person's opinion isn't automatically god's own truth just because they're not american ease up on the trigg...er, mouse finger. Who the hell would ever think that? When has that ever been suggested?
To put it in a format that you're familiar with:
This does not mean, however, that their opinion is valid, or that they have a right to be listened to.
Funny. I don't remember saying that their opinion is automatically valid or that they have a right to be listened to.
-
In fact (can't believe I'm defending shmokes ::) ) he routinely tells me he's ignoring me all the time ;) :P
-
I thought answering to TA's flame bait was useless, but when I see the way shmokes takes him apart, I have to admit it's highly entertaining.
-
Why do you feel the need to compulsively argue with absolutely everything a liberal says, even if he doesn't say something you disagree with.
You know, its strange.
I say everyone has the right to free speech, and you get all spastic.
Relax. You'll live longer.
-
Too bad TAP himself doesn't see he has just been "owned". Ah well.
-
Drugs (broadly speaking) only harm the people who choose to take them.
I know this is a gun control thread, but you've obviously never known anyone with a substance abuse problems.
-
The only gun that matters....
(http://www.act-labs.com/productimages/132_x.jpg)
I have 2 of them at home!
-
The only gun that matters....
I have 2 of them at home!
Were they modified to keep them from being banned? :P
-
You can pop off the back of the gun to add the scope and to make them fully automatic. Doing this will make them illegal. Thats why they no longer make them. :D
-
I have 2 of them at home!
Same here...and if I had children, they'd sure as hell know how to shoot 'em. Light Gun safety is paramount in my home.
I think CHILLER is the perfect learning tool for children, helps greatly with hand-eye coordination.
mrC
-
Well Said MrC. :o
Lightguns have been know to have killed many digital aliens.
-
In fact (can't believe I'm defending shmokes ::) ) he routinely tells me he's ignoring me all the time ;) :P
drew, there's a typo in your title thingy. shouldn't it say vote for KAREE?
-
In fact (can't believe I'm defending shmokes ::) ) he routinely tells me he's ignoring me all the time ;) :P
drew, there's a typo in your title thingy. shouldn't it say vote for KAREE?
Ya know, I had no clue as to what the heck you were talking about, as I don't usually look at it, but all of a sudden, I saw it....that's just M-er F-ing Rong! (yes, that's how wrong it is, it's gotta be spelled with a darn "R"!
It's almost as if they gave MrC mod status for a day, and he's perpetrating opinion fraud too!
Ya know what's gonna be funny? All the people who read my posts and then say to themselves "well why the heck does he have Vote For Kerry under his name?
Just lump me in with the great unwashed....I'm an "undecided" ::) ;)
-
I gotta admit, after posting that and looking at it again, I couldn't help but laughing so friggen hard! Whichever of you mods did it, you got me, you got me GOOD! Kudos! ;D ;D ;D
-
rofl (again)!! thats funny. it made me double-check mine...
-
Lol, I love these gun discussion threads. They're almost as amusing as the Ipac vs Keywiz threads! But of course TA Pilot will have no idea what I'm talking about because he has no interest whatsoever in arcade controls!
I like gun threads too, and I own both an Ipac and a Keywiz. Can I play? :)
I also live in Britain and I can confirm that in normal life you simply never ever come across guns. No amount of dubious statistics obtained from the internet is going to change this fact.
The only guns you can obtain in Britain without a licence are low powered air rifles and they are generally pretty pathetic. Probably the only way you could kill someone with one would be to shoot directly into someone's eye at close range.
You can only obtain a licence for a more powerful gun by convincing the authorities that you have a legitimate reason for owning one e.g. you're a farmer, belong to a gun club etc.
Unless you're irish. ;)
Oh, and incidentally the desire to strut around like John Wayne would not be regarded as a legitimate reason....
The argument that guns should be legal because other potentially dangerous things such as cars, knives and rope are legal is pretty dubious. Most guns manufactured today are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to kill human beings. All of the other things listed also have other purposes. Ok, a few guns are designed for hunting animals, but those types of gun are legal (although heavily regulated) in most western countries in recognition of that legitimate use.
Traditionally, americans are self-reliant. We support ourselves, take care of ourselves, and defend ourselves. Guns are simply an effective means to defend ourselves. Guns are regulated here as well. But due to the way our founding fathers framed our right to bear arms, they're not nearly as regulated as they are over there. The governments you've endured there has been restricting your right of arms for how many centuries? Ours found it overly oppressive and took a different path. As I recall, it was a british decision to confiscate arms that prompted our ancestors to revolt in the first place. ;)
I'd be very interested to know where (if anywhere) T A Pilot would draw the line. Does he for instance think it is ok for citizens to own their own private nuclear weapons? After all nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people!! I'm deliberately choosing an extreme example to illustrate how dubious this line of reasoning is.
Ideally, free access to machine guns and distructive devices would be ideal. No nukes, biologicals, or chemical weapons. We can already own tanks and combat aircraft, allowing destructive devices would cover re-arming them.
There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns. If a country that allowed mass gun ownership was invaded, it would be very difficult for the invading army to subjugate an armed civilian population. A good example of this scenario is the current situation in Iraq.
But for me the price is too high, and in any case I don't think it's likely that the USA (or indeed any other western country) is going to be invaded any time soon.
It works quite well for the Swiss, and they've all got machineguns. Lucky ---daisies---. ;)
The US constitution was written in an age when there was very little organised law enforcement. The right to bear arms was a practical necessity back in those days but not any more.
Like I said, we're a self-sufficent lot. Times have changed, but there's still as much need for self-defense today as there was back then. I have family members alive today because they were armed when they needed to be. You'd be hard pressed to convince them that there's no good reason to carry a gun.
And of course guns were much less powerful then as well.
I disagree. Guns of that era were quite lethal concidering the state of medical science.
Of course it is for Americans to decide how they wish to run their society. But I sincerely hope that we in Britain continue to heavily regulate gun ownership.
As long as we're armed, it will completely be within our power to decide how we wish to run our society. I've no reason to doubt that your right of arms will not be restored in the forseeable future. If that works for you, fine. It won't work here, ever.
Incidentally, and slightly off topic, I also believe that most drugs (both prescription and recreational) should be legalised. Does this contradict my stance on gun control? I don't think so.
My philosophy is that people should be able to do exactly what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.
Drugs (broadly speaking) only harm the people who choose to take them. However guns (again broadly speaking) tend to harm other people.
No arguement here. What consenting adults do in their private lives should be their business alone. As long as you're personally responsible for whatever you do while your high or drunk, go for it. That said, I've no problem restricting access of such things to children, or adults that act like children when they've a buzz going. Guns on the other hand do have beneficial qualities that drugs generally lack.
Apologies for the format, I hate doing the quote/reply thing but yours is a big post and I wanted to address the points individually.
-
It works quite well for the Swiss, and they've all got machineguns. Lucky ---daisies---. ;)
that's cos they aint got no army...
-
This happens all the time in the Greek island of Crete. Especially during wedding and when Greece won the Euro Cup this year.
see, guns CAN kill people. Maybe not on purpose. But people shouldn't be doing that...
-
This happens all the time in the Greek island of Crete. Especially during wedding and when Greece won the Euro Cup this year.
see, guns CAN kill people. Maybe not on purpose. But people shouldn't be doing that...
Bullets kill people.. not guns.. .:p
-
This happens all the time in the Greek island of Crete. Especially during wedding and when Greece won the Euro Cup this year.
see, guns CAN kill people. Maybe not on purpose. But people shouldn't be doing that...
Bullets kill people.. not guns.. .:p
Bullets shot FROM a gun BY people kill people , neither bullets, guns or people alone kill people ;D
It's probably not that easy to kill someone with a bullet (without a gun)
-
Bullets shot FROM a gun BY people kill people , neither bullets, guns or people alone kill people ;D
It's probably not that easy to kill someone with a bullet (without a gun)
*Throws a bullet REALLY hard @ GG to demonstrate*
*now throws a gun REALLY hard @ GG for step 2*
*picks up patrickl and throws him REALLY hard @ GG for step 3*
That last step, with a large enough person, COULD disprove your theory, and a well placed throw in step 2 could also scrap the whole deal, but step 1 clearly demonstrates flawed logic in the "bullets kill people, not guns or people" theory ;D ;D
-
Well, you know...
The impact energy of a well-swung ball bat is greater than that from a .45ACP - the .445ACP is just across a smaller area and in less time.
Guns cause crime like forks cause obesity.
-
i for one would like to see SPORKS banned- i think THEY are criminal...
-
Tailgunner, although I disagree with most of what you say, you do make some interesting points (unlike TA Pilot who quoted extremely selectively from my original post).
I didn't for instance realise that the Swiss were allowed to own machine guns. I guess that spoils a lot of jokes about them fighting their enemies with swiss army knives!
You're also sort of consistent. I'm always sympathetic to people who are in favour of legalising drugs and also pro gun ownewship.
Emotionally, I'm extremely libertarian, but rationally I recognise that in our increasingly overcrowded and interdependent world, there have to be some constraints on individual liberties, and one such constraint is over gun ownewship.
What I never understand is people who are anti-drug but pro-gun ownership.
I was amused by the quaint view you have of Britain. We may live in a theme park, but we've moved on a bit over the past two hundred years, and I can assure you that although our society is far from perfect, we are every bit as democratic as the United States. It's not our nasty oppressive government that has imposed gun controls on us. Quite the reverse. Our government has been forced over the years to introduce stronger gun controls because of pressure from public opinion.
I also think you're wrong to suggest that 18th century guns are comparable to modern guns on the basis that they were capable of killing people (isn't that what guns are designed for?).
In the 18th cantury if you wanted to load a gun you had to pour some gunpowder into the barrell, and then ram down a lead ball wrapped in cloth using a long stick. You probably also had to do a few other things as well, but I'm no gun expert. Oh, and they also only fired a single shot before requiring a reload. Even when sealed shells were introduced, guns remained single shot for a long time. There is no way you could carry out a Columbine style massacre with one of these weapons. You might, if you were very lucky, kill one person before being overpowered.
I've also been rethinking the argument I made in favour of gun ownership and I'd like to modify the statement I made slightly:
There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns. If a country that allowed mass gun ownership was invaded, it would be very difficult for CERTAIN TYPES OF invading armies (or I guess home grown oppressors) to subjugate an armed civilian population.
Let me elaborate on this by going back to the example of Iraq. Some sections of the Iraqi population are mounting a very effective guerilla (or if you prefer terrorist) campaign against the British and American armies. Yet Saddam was easily able to subjugate the Iraqi people for several decades. Why is this? Well the answer is obvious. Saddam was prepared to be totally ruthless. If someone had kidnapped a hostage in his era, he would simply have wiped out the hostage taker's entire family, perhaps even his entire village. And he wouldn't have given a damn whether or not the hostage was killed in the process. The American and British armies are required to act within certain constraints (and quite rightly so). This means that it is harder for them to deal with a terrorist campaign.
What has this got to do with gun control? Well the Iraqi civilian population was, and still is, armed to the teeth. I understand that almost every adult male owns a gun, and we're not just talking revolvers, we're talking Kalashnikovs. However these guns did not protect them from Saddam.
You said that "As long as we're armed, it will completely be within our power to decide how we wish to run our society".
Sorry but I disagree. The bottom line is that a civilian population (however well armed) will never be a match for trained professional soldiers, if the soldiers are willing and able to act without restraint.
Also, modern wars are increasingly being fought with weapons other than guns. What good would a guy with a rifle be against a laser guided missile for instance?
But as I said originally, I wouldn't presume to tell you how you should run your society. I just like a good debate.
p.s. TA Pilot, if you re-read my original post, you will see that I addressed every single point you made. I'm not going to repeat myself, life's too short. Oh, and you still haven't answered the question of why people shouldn't be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. Quoting bits of the American constitution and an obscure court case is not an argument. In any case didn't you say the constitution is technology blind?
-
Well the Iraqi civilian population was, and still is, armed to the teeth. I understand that almost every adult male owns a gun, and we're not just talking revolvers, we're talking Kalashnikovs. However these guns did not protect them from Saddam.
Didn't they get these guns mostly after the war ended (or at least was declared to have ended by GWB)?
Anyway, this is no reason to own a gun. Apart from the fact that civillians with a gun don't defend a nation against invasion (they merely annoy the invader during a long occupation), these guns can be stored in caches (like they were in Iraq) and distributed at the time an invasion is imminent.
-
Oh, and you still haven't answered the question of why people shouldn't be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. Quoting bits of the American constitution and an obscure court case is not an argument.
Youre right.
Citing a court case isnt an argument - it is support for an agument.
US v Miller is the controlling case in federal 2nd amendment law, as its the only 2nd Amendment case the USSC has heard. Therefore, to call it "obscure" is to not understand the power behind it - or , perhaps, an attempt to downplay its significance.
And my argument is plain (and well supported) - given that no line infantry unit anywhere at any time has been issued a nuclear weapon, its impossible to argue that the 2nd protects a right to own it. There isnt any way even the smallest nuclear devide would pass the Miller test.
The same does not apply to pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, submachineguns, and machineguns. Clearly, these do pass the test and as such are protected. our right to own them shall not be infringed.
-
Anyway, this is no reason to own a gun.
Yeah.
The need, real or perceived, to protect yourself from people that are tyring very hard to kill you isnt a reason to own a gun.
-
no, shooting atmosphere isn't a need
-
no, shooting atmosphere isn't a need
English much speak?
-
I was responding to him
-
Anyway, this is no reason to own a gun.
Yeah.
The need, real or perceived, to protect yourself from people that are tyring very hard to kill you isnt a reason to own a gun.
someone has a contract out on T & A pitot!!! who'd a thought ;D
if it's the mob, you're boned, T & A. they'll just go for your family...
ya really gotta watch who ya borrow money off ;D
-
I was responding to him
And I'll echo the sentiment....
"shooting atmosphere isnt a need"?
Whats that mean?
-
I was responding to him
And I'll echo the sentiment....
"shooting atmosphere isnt a need"?
Whats that mean?
Your response to my original statement was nonsense (i.e it wasn't a response to the statement itself, but only to the wrongly perceived meaning of it) so in return Floyd10 responds with more nonsense. I guess that's what it means ...
-
He was saying that (James, correct me if I'm not stating your position correctly) shooting your gun into the air doesn't constitute a need to own a gun.
While I think, Floyd, that you are trying to simplify the anti-gun argument, I have to think that THAT'S what a majority of anti's think gun owners do when they're not out blowing animals to smithereens.
Hey, is there a season on racoons, because those are something I may start hunting. Darn things make it hard to drive....laying all over the road like furry speed bumps.
-
I agree with the first thing you said. I'm not anti-gun. I just think it's a little excessive to have fully automatic assault rifles for protection. The same with drums of napalm...
-
I just think it's a little excessive to have fully automatic assault rifles for protection.
How many people do you know that has a full automatic assault rifle - for protection or otherwise?
-
I just think it's a little excessive to have fully automatic assault rifles for protection.
How many people do you know that has a full automatic assault rifle - for protection or otherwise?
one,but why should we allowed to have these?
-
one,but why should we allowed to have these?
Because we have the right to arms... and they are "arms".
There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?
-
one,but why should we allowed to have these?
Because we have the right to arms... and they are "arms".
There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?
So do you think it should be legal to own small explosives? Place them on the windows. that'll stop intruders!
Or how about coat the lawn and walkway with napalm! That should help as well!
-
There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?
-
Sorry... It's Friday!
-
Sorry... It's Friday!
Said as if there is any other day of the week where you could post an effective answer to my question.
-
There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?
Im not saying it wont work, im saying it's unnecessary. But thats just me
-
Sorry... It's Friday!
Said as if there is any other day of the week where you could post an effective answer to my question.
Sorry, I forgot what your question was? Oh, I remember. I recommend 2 T-Slik Pluses and a IPAC/2.
-
Im not saying it wont work, im saying it's unnecessary. But thats just me
Whats "necessary"?
If there's a reason a particular weapon cant be used for any of the legitimate uses for a firearm, then you might be able to argue that you dont have a right to own it.
But if you can't come up with any such reason... then you're arguing up a very steep hill.
-
Oh, and you still haven't answered the question of why people shouldn't be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. Quoting bits of the American constitution and an obscure court case is not an argument.
Youre right.
Citing a court case isnt an argument - it is support for an agument.
US v Miller is the controlling case in federal 2nd amendment law, as its the only 2nd Amendment case the USSC has heard. Therefore, to call it "obscure" is to not understand the power behind it - or , perhaps, an attempt to downplay its significance.
And my argument is plain (and well supported) - given that no line infantry unit anywhere at any time has been issued a nuclear weapon, its impossible to argue that the 2nd protects a right to own it. There isnt any way even the smallest nuclear devide would pass the Miller test.
The same does not apply to pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, submachineguns, and machineguns. Clearly, these do pass the test and as such are protected. our right to own them shall not be infringed.
Ahh, at last we're making some progress.
If I understand correctly, you're saying that it's ok for American citizens to own any type of 'infantry' weapon (i.e. one that can be carried by a foot soldier?) but not more powerful weapons. This still seems to be an arbitrary point at which to draw the line (and I'll leave aside the fact that there is nothing to stop a foot soldier carrying a nuclear device) but at least I'm now slightly closer to understanding your position.
Let me repeat my original question in a different way. If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still. If not then why not? I'm playing devil's advocate and using your logic here. Surely it would be un-American not to have access to the most powerful weapons available.
You have also repeated your statement that it's ok to own 'infantry' weapons because it says so in the American constitution. As I said before this is not an argument. You have to explain why a 200 year old document drawn up in another age has anything relevant to say about weapons ownership today.
-
Sorry, I forgot what your question was? Oh, I remember. I recommend 2 T-Slik Pluses and a IPAC/2.
Hey! Beaker!
Look at the subject of this thread!
If you can't stay on topic, go somewhere that you can!
If you continue to disrupt this post with off-topic nonsense, I'll have to report you to the moderator.
-
Sorry, I forgot what your question was? Oh, I remember. I recommend 2 T-Slik Pluses and a IPAC/2.
Hey! Beaker!
Look at the subject of this thread!
If you can't stay on topic, go somewhere that you can!
If you continue to disrupt this post with off-topic nonsense, I'll have to report you to the moderator.
Sorry to go off-topic.
What I meant to recommend is 2 Act-Labs PC-TV Guns. One for you and your kids.
http://www.act-labs.com/scripts/proddetails.asp?pid=132
-
TA and Floyd, have you tried to PM each other?
BTW wasn't the subject of this thread to watch a chick with guns video?
And didn't the powers that be decide gun control was a dead end subject?
Here's a funny...
When TA first started posting I thought he was really Floyd.
<I still have my doubts>
-
If I understand correctly, you're saying that it's ok for American citizens to own any type of 'infantry' weapon (i.e. one that can be carried by a foot soldier?)
Close enough.
NOte that while your average infantryman -could- carry a nuclear weapon, they never do.
If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.
Absolutely false.
I cannot effectively use a nuclear weaoin in any of the ways I might need to exercise my right to arms.
As I said before this is not an argument.
Here, it is.
You have to explain why a 200 year old document drawn up in another age has anything relevant to say about weapons ownership today.
Because the right to self-defense, exercised individuyally or collectively is just as valid and as important today as in 1791.
-
Here's a funny...
When TA first started posting I thought he was really Floyd.
<I still have my doubts>
LOL
Well, I have often said that the only way I can have an intelligent conversation is to talk to myself.
I dont mind at all discussing this in an open forum - if for no other reason than it annoys Beaker.
-
If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.
Absolutely false.
I cannot effectively use a nuclear weaoin in any of the ways I might need to exercise my right to arms.
T A Pilot, can you expand a bit on this point, and perhaps give some hypothetical examples?
Please note I'm not trying to nit-pick. I'm genuinly trying to understand what you're saying here.
-
T A Pilot, can you expand a bit on this point, and perhaps give some hypothetical examples?
Please note I'm not trying to nit-pick. I'm genuinly trying to understand what you're saying here.
The assertion was:
If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.
The right to arms exists so that we can, individually or collectively, ecerxise our right to self defense.
There isnt any way I can effectively exercixe my right to self-defense with a nuke. I cant effectively use it to protect myself on the street, in my car, in my house. I cant use it to effectively defend myself or anyone else from assailiant.
"If you dont drop the knife and leave now, I'll set off this .5kt nuclear device". Do you see that having any effect at all?
Similarly, a nuke would be useless in the effective collective exercise of the right to self-defense. Should the people in my community band together to combat a common threat, the comminuty itself would be as much as rick to the effects of the nuclear weapon as the threat itself. You really arent gaining much in the defense of your town if the town is rendered uninhabitable by said defense.
So, the "bigger is better" theory isnt sound; nukes do not in any way make you safer than a gun.
-
If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.
No WMD would ever be classified as a gun. Nor would a nuclear device.
A nuke is a bomb. We are not allowed to have grenades, even though infantry soldiers carry and use them. We are not allowed to have pipe bombs or napalm. None of those things are guns.
The "bigger is better" argument is moot, anyway. The law of diminishing returns kicks in. At some point the gun will be too large to be effectively used for home protection. If I park a tank in my driveway, I can't swing that big gun around fast enough to point it at a single person darting around my lawn. I also can't carry it with me as I walk down the street.
It seems silly that I have to point out what seems fairly obvious. TA Pilot has quoted numerous times the standard we use for determining what guns are protected.
A nuke is a bomb.
A bomb is not a gun.
A nuke is not protected by the 2nd amentment.
-
um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.
not the right to own guns...
-
um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.
Thats right.
And "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment has been defined by the USSC to clearly include firearms and clearly exclude nuclear weapons.
You're making an argument based on an invalid definition. You can use "arms" in it common meaning in causal conversation, but once its been legally defined as something --other-- that its common meaning, the common meaning no longer holds.
So, sorry to break it to you, but "arms" as used in the 2nd does not include nukes.
Now, you can try to make the (baseless) argument that if does, but you'll never be able to support it, and you'll necessarily be arguing that it does indeed include M16s, M60s, etc.
-
um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.
Thats right.
And "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment has been defined by the USSC to clearly include firearms and clearly exclude nuclear weapons.
You're making an argument based on an invalid definition. You can use "arms" in it common meaning in causal conversation, but once its been legally defined as something --other-- that its common meaning, the common meaning no longer holds.
So, sorry to break it to you, but "arms" as used in the 2nd does not include nukes.
Now, you can try to make the (baseless) argument that if does, but you'll never be able to support it, and you'll necessarily be arguing that it does indeed include M16s, M60s, etc.
I know. I was correcting his argument.
-
um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.
not the right to own guns...
I hope you don't seriously believe this.
There are no absolute rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If that were true there would be no gun debate. We could all have whatever we felt like.
That's why the USSC had to make a definition as to what constitutes "arms" as protected by the 2nd Amendment.
-
You must have been trying to post that reply for 2 hours ;)
-
If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.
No WMD would ever be classified as a gun. Nor would a nuclear device.
A nuke is not protected by the 2nd amentment.
apparently a bomb in a shoe is a WMD. whats the amendment say about shoes? ;D
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2002_1_17_womd.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/presspage/Oct2004/Badat-Saajid-Indictment.htm
-
I love when you'all gun nuts fall back on the Supreme Court "definition" of arms whenever people point out that surely the 2nd Amendment does not apply to many weapons. It's such an assinine argument.
The fact that the Supreme Court had to create a brand new definition of the word "arms" rather than simply using Webster's, only reinforces the gun control people's argument that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and lines must be drawn. There is simply no evidence that the 2nd Amendment excluded any existing arms when it was written. If that is true, then it means that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right of the people to possess any weapon that a corrupt government or foreign invader might use, as it necessarily must if the people are expected to be able to defend themselves against said invasion. If the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow people to protect themselves from a corrupt government and it's army or a foreign invasion it makes no sense to disallow the people from owning weapons that their would-be enemy's possess. Look how difficult a time the Iraqi's are having against our government's military and they DO have the shoulder fired missle launches, mines and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.
Unfortunately, you use the Supreme Court case to dodge actually answering the question. There's not much question about what is and is not legal. That's pretty clearly defined. We're talking about what should and should not be legal. Therefore it's a perfectly valid question to ask why, if the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own assault rifles, it should not guarantee your right to own shoulder-fired missile launchers, tanks or WMD's. For you to counter with, "Because the Supreme Court said...," is like you asking me why I think abortion should be legal and my response being, "Because Roe v. Wade says so." Assinine.
And don't forget that the Supreme Court specifically ruled in Plessy that "separate but equal" was constitutional, only to specifically rule ten years later in Brown that it was unconstitutional. Supreme Court rulings can be and often are overturned by future Supreme Court's. Roe, for example, could be and likely will be overturned if Bush wins the election and Sandra O'Conner retires (both of which are highly likely).
So, the moral of the story is: Next time somebody asks you a perfectly valid quesiton, try to either answer it or reevaluate your position in light of the fact that you can't. Don't just cop out.
p.s. Owning an assault rifle will do me little good if the Ruskies drive into town in tanks. In that case, I think I could much better defend myself from a foreign invasion if I had a tank parked in my drive-way.
-
It's such an assinine argument.
And the argument that the 2nd applies to nuclear weapons...isnt?
Theres something call "jurisprudence". You dont have to like it, but you have to resprect it. The USSC was in a position hwere it had to define "arms" and it did.
Now, if -you- want to argue that the 2nd protects my Davy Crockett launcher and spare warheads, thats fine - because then you're necessarily arguing that it also protects my M14 and M-60. I wont help you make the argument, but at least you admit that it protects evernything -I- think should be protected.
If you're gouing to argue that because the idea that it proctecs nules is asinine, and therefore it cant possibly protect my M-14 and M-60 either, then we'll have problems.
-
All forms of bombs aren't illegal. 5 yrs in prison for each.
-
TA and Floyd, have you tried to PM each other?
BTW wasn't the subject of this thread to watch a chick with guns video?
And didn't the powers that be decide gun control was a dead end subject?
why would floyd PM himself? although sometimes on this forum i have PMSL...