Notices
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 784
Like Tree166Likes

Thread: Gun Control Debate

  1. #101  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    if you really need a aka-47 to defend your every day life, you might wanna ask yourself why.
    mikepotter84 likes this.
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    curious:
    you don't really need the second "a"
    Avtomat (automatic) Kalashnikova 47
    ak47
    designed by mikhail kalashnikov
    roughly based on the german stg 44

    fires a 7.62x39mm cartridge---usually made with a steel core(vs the m1 carbine which uses a 7.62×33mm round)
    7.62 = 30 caliber
    maybe the last and best of the 30 caliber assault rifles
    and the thing has a rather distinctive bark when fired

    give mikhail his due, the thing is virtually jam-proof

    it ain't really about whether people need an assault rifle-(I've never "needed" one)----it's about whether we have the right to own whatever we damned well please.
    denying law abiding citizens of any rights bespeaks tyranny.

    personally, I prefer the power, range and accuracy of a scoped bolt action long rifle
    Last edited by sculptor; April 8th, 2013 at 09:38 PM.
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    it's about whether we have the right to own whatever we damned well please.
    you're kidding me, right?
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    not even a little bit
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    so it's not about being able to defend yourself, but to assassine and set a example of superiority?
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    superiority as per my morality carries a heavy burden
    which I abjure
    more on the order of freedom and equality
    I do not wish to dictate to you how you should live, who you should marry, what you should own, what you should eat, drink, nor smoke
    Nor, do i wish you to think you are free to do any of that to me

    .............................
    edit:
    if you are asking if I would defend myself or those I love
    then
    "gosh and gollies you betcha"(see the play "a thousand clowns")
    though not very strong, as a child I never tolerated bullies, and I ain't gonna start now
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    so why would a average person need a aka-47 in their home?
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    there is no such thing as an "average person" it is a construct for those too limited in intellect to see each and every person as a uniquely gifted and limited individual
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    there is no such thing as an "average person" it is a construct for those too limited in intellect to see each and every person as a uniquely gifted and limited individual
    This is the sappiest Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Spock, Dr. Phil crap I've yet read on here.

    Really?

    So some people are too stupid to see other assholes as "Uniquely gifted?"
    Allow me to exert my unique gift to the world: "Blow it out yer ass."
    curious mind likes this.
     

  10. #110  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if you really need a aka-47 to defend your every day life, you might wanna ask yourself why.
    This is a common, not to mention simple-minded, bromide offered by bleeding-hearts who don't want to understand why opponents of gun bans believe the way they do. It isn't necessarily about needing an AK-47 to defend oneself against common burglars (though it would be highly effective in doing so) it's more about protecting ourselves against tyranny. Now, this is the part where most gun control proponents roll their eyes and either ask what the chances are of an American insurrection or how we expect an AK-47 to hold up against nuclear weapons.

    To the first, I would suggest they direct their browser to any major news website and count how many uprisings, coups, and civil wars are happening right this very second anywhere in the world. It's even happened in this very country--twice! Once to serve as the foundation of our emancipation from British rule, and later when one region of the nation felt their livelihoods were being taken away. It isn't outside the realm of possibilities that the need arises to take up arms again, either in defense of the country or in effort to take it back. Do I think it happens in my lifetime? Probably not. But you never know, and I would never rule it out.

    To the second, even in the case of an armed uprising, the likelihood of the US government nuking its own populace is virtually nil. And you never know where the battle lines will be drawn. Point is, in the eventuality of such an occurrence, having access to assault weapons could mean the difference between winning and losing.

    The other, more practical issue is this: people who can't seem to fathom why Americans would want to have such weapons so badly (I hear many Australians who are positively flummoxed by this) also have never been told in writing in their founding documents that they have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Americans have that right spelled out for them in the constitution--it's in writing, it's official, and it's a big deal.
    Neverfly and mat5592 like this.
     

  11. #111  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    I think Americans should have more and bigger guns.
    If they are going to stand a chance against their own military, then they are going to also need tanks and rocket launchers.

    American citizens need to be as well armed as their own military else they will not be able to defend themselves from said military.
    (They might even need a nuclear deterent - I guess one for each citizen.)

    IMO: They should get those munitions.
    It seems 'win win' to me.
    Last edited by RedPanda; April 9th, 2013 at 06:58 AM.
    curious mind and MrMojo1 like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788


    I fear no one!
    curious mind, RedPanda and Meraxes like this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if you really need a aka-47 to defend your every day life, you might wanna ask yourself why.
    This is a common, not to mention simple-minded, bromide offered by bleeding-hearts who don't want to understand why opponents of gun bans believe the way they do. It isn't necessarily about needing an AK-47 to defend oneself against common burglars (though it would be highly effective in doing so) it's more about protecting ourselves against tyranny. Now, this is the part where most gun control proponents roll their eyes and either ask what the chances are of an American insurrection or how we expect an AK-47 to hold up against nuclear weapons.

    To the first, I would suggest they direct their browser to any major news website and count how many uprisings, coups, and civil wars are happening right this very second anywhere in the world. It's even happened in this very country--twice! Once to serve as the foundation of our emancipation from British rule, and later when one region of the nation felt their livelihoods were being taken away. It isn't outside the realm of possibilities that the need arises to take up arms again, either in defense of the country or in effort to take it back. Do I think it happens in my lifetime? Probably not. But you never know, and I would never rule it out.

    To the second, even in the case of an armed uprising, the likelihood of the US government nuking its own populace is virtually nil. And you never know where the battle lines will be drawn. Point is, in the eventuality of such an occurrence, having access to assault weapons could mean the difference between winning and losing.

    The other, more practical issue is this: people who can't seem to fathom why Americans would want to have such weapons so badly (I hear many Australians who are positively flummoxed by this) also have never been told in writing in their founding documents that they have the right to defend themselves with firearms. Americans have that right spelled out for them in the constitution--it's in writing, it's official, and it's a big deal.
    if you hang on to a writing from centuries ago, you should also only use the weapon from back then. or you need a sniper rifle to take down your 'morning paper stealing' neighbor?
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so why would a average person need a aka-47 in their home?
    The same reason the police have semi automatic rifles, to have the firepower needed to protect and defend themselves. Handguns are only adequate if the other person is unarmed or severely outnumbered, and even then it still might not be enough to save your life.

    Real life is not Hollywood. People do not get hit with handgun fire and fall over dead. One on one or one on multiple attackers and you will very likely be killed. You will also very likely be killed even if you hit your attacker or attackers with multiple rounds from your handgun.

    Handguns are inadequate for the purpose of defending your home and life against an armed attacker or armed attackers. Handguns in the home should always be seen as a back-up or emergency weapon, not a primary weapon to be used to defend you and/or your family.

    Rifles give the average person defending their home and life the firepower they need to actually defend and protect their home and life. That rifle will give you a real chance and opportunity to survive.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 9th, 2013 at 07:19 AM.
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so why would a average person need a aka-47 in their home?
    The same reason the police have semi automatic rifles, to have the firepower needed to protect and defend themselves. Handguns are only adequate if the other person is unarmed or severely outnumbered, and even then it still might not be enough to save your life.

    Real life is not Hollywood. People do not get hit with handgun fire and fall over dead. One on one or one on multiple attackers and you will very likely be killed. You will also very likely be killed even if you hit your attacker or attackers with multiple rounds from your handgun.

    Handguns are inadequate for the purpose of defending your home and life against an armed attacker or armed attackers. Handguns in the home should always be seen as a back-up or emergency weapon, not a primary weapon to be used to defend you and/or your family.

    Rifles give the average person defending their home and life the firepower they need to actually defend and protect their home and life. That rifle will give you a real chance and opportunity to survive.
    What you say in comparing long-guns and handguns for self defense purposes is true, of course. However, realistically, one will very likely not be burdened with fending off an army from within his home. If confronted with the sudden need (always is sudden) for lethal self defense capability, surroundings within most homes are often quite confined, cluttered, offering many obstacles to the sudden need to swing a long weapon into action.

    Instant killing power being a fallacy, high-velocity self defense rounds (rifle) will not incapacitate much more quickly than lower velocity handgun fire, IMO. Their advantage lies in maintaining velocity at much greater range, distance-killing capability being un-needed within a home. A rifle, granted, is more easily point-shot without careful aim than a hangun; getting it into action while confined by surroundings recommends handgun use under such circumstances.

    A short shotgun, though generally illegal, might in my mind be an acceptable alternative to either of the above choices. jocular
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    What you say in comparing long-guns and handguns for self defense purposes is true, of course. However, realistically, one will very likely not be burdened with fending off an army from within his home. If confronted with the sudden need (always is sudden) for lethal self defense capability, surroundings within most homes are often quite confined, cluttered, offering many obstacles to the sudden need to swing a long weapon into action.Instant killing power being a fallacy, high-velocity self defense rounds (rifle) will not incapacitate much more quickly than lower velocity handgun fire, IMO. Their advantage lies in maintaining velocity at much greater range, distance-killing capability being un-needed within a home. A rifle, granted, is more easily point-shot without careful aim than a hangun; getting it into action while confined by surroundings recommends handgun use under such circumstances. A short shotgun, though generally illegal, might in my mind be an acceptable alternative to either of the above choices. jocular
    I personally like shotguns. I do not prefer them over rifles but, they are, IMO, far superior to handguns and they have, like rifles, multiple applicable uses/functions/utility.

    It is also not about just taking on more than one attacker, right? Lets be very honest here, we are talking about the lives of men, women and children. If you are going to make the decision to have arms in your home there is no reason, IMO, to rely on, to possibly have to count on, an inferior product to attempt to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones. It makes no sense IMO to have a handgun and insure you will be, at best, equally armed, and at worst and most likely, if you have a handgun, out gunned by your attackers. I want the good guys better armed than the bad guys, and if they can't be, I hope they have a rifle and some practice in with that rifle.

    Concerning the rounds, I really hate to talk about the ballistics between rounds/ammo but, I think I have to here. Take your common 5.56 rifle ammo and compare it to any handgun round and the difference, the potential stopping power, is clear. For instance the 5.56 has the potential to hit someone with about 1300 ft lbs of force, while the 45 acp (handgun round) has the potential to hit someone with about 400 ft lbs of force. On top of being able to fire a round that has at least 3 times the potential stopping power of any common handgun, the ability to remain on target and/or aquire a new target is far faster with a rifle than it is with a handgun and/or shotgun. The low recoil produced by the 5.56 round also makes it possible for women to use as well as any man can.

    There is also very little space required to move and shoot a 16" barreled rife. Homes are no problem.
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Good information you speak, to be sure. However, I believe the energy factor involved in incapacitation of a crazed individual is less important than the actual damage done to the vascular system. In other words, if we could shoot a sharp-edged cookie cutter projectile which spun but did not tumble, the bigger it's diameter the better, we have a great chance of slicing through many blood vessels, this being quite important for passage through the lungs or heart area. 5.56mm bullets drill holes cleanly, doing much less physiological damage to blood vessels on average, than larger projectiles. This only follows logic. At the other extreme, a 6-inch diameter projectile through the torso will obviously prove superior to all else we've considered.

    Massad Ayoob spoke years ago about a hollow-point bullet he called the "flying ashtray", which provided an attempt at achieving the cookie-cutter effect. I have done some experimentation with making up my own cookie-cutter designs, but unfortunately have no test results to give you. In summary, theory suggests that the flexibility of blood vessels even allows them to sometimes be "pushed" aside by a rounded projectile, rather than be severed by it. So, a "head-shot" still remains a good bet, but like all things certain, it is the more difficult to achieve than body hits. jocular
     

  18. #118  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    if you hang on to a writing from centuries ago, you should also only use the weapon from back then. or you need a sniper rifle to take down your 'morning paper stealing' neighbor?
    More inanity. And do you really not understand the concept of a constitution?
     

  19. #119  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post

    What you say in comparing long-guns and handguns for self defense purposes is true, of course. However, realistically, one will very likely not be burdened with fending off an army from within his home. If confronted with the sudden need (always is sudden) for lethal self defense capability, surroundings within most homes are often quite confined, cluttered, offering many obstacles to the sudden need to swing a long weapon into action.

    Instant killing power being a fallacy, high-velocity self defense rounds (rifle) will not incapacitate much more quickly than lower velocity handgun fire, IMO. Their advantage lies in maintaining velocity at much greater range, distance-killing capability being un-needed within a home. A rifle, granted, is more easily point-shot without careful aim than a hangun; getting it into action while confined by surroundings recommends handgun use under such circumstances.

    A short shotgun, though generally illegal, might in my mind be an acceptable alternative to either of the above choices. jocular
    The difference in effectiveness at incapacitating targets between a handgun and an assault rifle is not negligible. Assault rifles carry more rounds and fire at a much higher rate, making them far more effective. Handguns are easier to conceal and can fit in your nightstand drawer, but they lack the power or ammo capacity of assault rifles. It's ultimately up to the user which one is preferable, but we can't act like assault rifles aren't more effective at stopping an intruder or attacker. They are.

    And I still say, even though it may sound crazy, if it ever comes to the point where citizens have to defend themselves against an armed force--whether it's the government, a rebel group, or even home invaders (which is not uncommon), they should have access to powerful, high-capacity weapons. People scoff at that reasoning, but what do you think we have freedom of press for? To report on house fires and sports scores? No, it's to make sure the government can't hide what they're doing, and so they can't control the message to the people. That freedom exists for the same reason our right to bear arms does, and I can't imagine anyone being okay with an attempt to degrade our right to free press or speech.

    Taking them out of our hands because once in a while some nutjob opens fire on a schoolhouse or movie theater just isn't a good enough reason. It's a good enough reason to mandate a gun registry, and to change the way gun laws work in this country, but to take them away completely? No.
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Jocular, the 5.56 rarely goes straight through. It yaws and fragements.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 10th, 2013 at 05:20 AM.
     

  21. #121  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    [QUOTE=Meraxes;410991]
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    And do you really not understand the concept of a constitution?
    And do you really not understand why clinging desperately to a 200 hundred year old legal document is naive and irrational?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    He said following the US constitution is naive and irrational, not on the merits of the laws within it, rather because it is 200 years old. Lol

    How about we just disregard all the words in it that were written down on Mondays? I heard laws that have work in them done on Mondays are naive and irrational.
     

  23. #123  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    He said following the US constitution is naive and irrational, not on the merits of the laws within it, rather because it is 200 years old. Lol
    No I didn't.

    But I am not surprised by your lies.
    That is what you usually do when losing an argument.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I am personally not worried about the violations, attacks, on the constitution being pushed by democrats concerning the second amendment. The Supreme Court will shoot them down.
     

  25. #125  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post
    People who think the present administration is on the verge of tyranny are being a bit alarmist to say the least. However, tyrannical government has occurred throughout history and we have no idea what the U.S. government will be like in 20+ years. I feel like some "anti-gun" people don't fully appreciate the good reasons for the 2nd amendment.

    Some think those people who are afraid of the government taking away their guns are crazy while also supporting a ban on gun ownership. Having both of these positions simultaneously is, perhaps, not logically sound.
    Historically, most governments have tended to wait until their citizens are helpless before they go full dictator on them. Helplessness takes a few forms.

    1) - Poverty. If most of the population is poor, and working 80 hours a week just to eat, they can't organize resistance. They'd starve before they could win a war/rebellion.

    2) - Disarmed. Disarmament only matters after #1 has been achieved, but is also important. If they are unarmed but wealthy then they can always buy/make the guns when the time comes.

    3) - Timid. After they're disarmed, the next step is to cause them to lose the will to defend themselves by making self defense laws so narrowly defined that people are more afraid they'll go to jail for defending themselves than they are of the attacker.




    Finally, although I support reasonable gun control, I feel like there are more important issues that the media should be covering. On average, less than one person per day dies from a mass shooting whereas something like 1,300 die per day from tobacco. Think of other issues politicians and the media barely mention that have so much more potential for harm (obesity, climate change, nuclear weapon proliferation, human overpopulation issues, etc.)
    Death by cigarette is not tyranny. A person chooses to smoke. Same for obesity.

    While for some the choice is easier than it is for others, most of us have a choice. A kid might be forced to smoke by an abusive parent, or a medical condition might make physical fitness utterly impossible for a rare few fat people, but most of us have a choice.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  26. #126  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The bigger issue than losing the guns themselves, is losing vigilantism. Citizens need to be able and have the necessary bold attitude to be willing to enforce the law and protect themselves without the aid of the police. Otherwise the police force might become corrupt and they'll be unable to remove them.

    Looking at a country like Ukraine, people in many towns know the local police force is utterly corrupt, and is only barely enforcing the law. However, if they removed/fired them it would be utter anarchy. They are forced to endure the very poor enforcement because their only alternative is none at all.

    In the USA, if you fire the police, you can simply recruit a bunch of private gun owners to form a new police force. The change is immediate, and the rudiments of the necessary training are already present.

    Even in extreme cases of anarchy, like the LA riots, looters have to be somewhat timid about home invasions, because they know a certain percentage of home owners have guns and know how to use them. That's why the best advice in a riot is to stay in your home. If the population were unarmed, then staying in your home would do little to no good at all.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  27. #127  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    [irony]

    Don't worry, US citizens. If your government goes all tyrannical and full dictator on you, the rest of the world will come to your aid and impose regime change, enforcing democracy once more.

    [/irony]
    sculptor and RedPanda like this.
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    this could make a good movie. a paranoid nation arming up then kill each other.
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    curious mind?
    (some days, I wonder whether it's curious or heavily biased)

    (wild guess du jour)
    99.99+% of weapons owned by civilian citizens of the United states have never and will never be used to shoot another human being.

    if you include us in your movie, you may just find the cure for insomnia
    ......close up of weapon leaning in a closet for months on end until i take it out and clean it and test the zero, then clean it and put it away again, over and over and over and over and over again.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    ..............
    don't believe everything you see on tv
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    (wild guess du jour)
    99.99+% of weapons owned by civilian citizens of the United states have never and will never be used to shoot another human being.
    That should make you happy.

    But perhaps the reason it doesn't is because you invented that percentage off your head and that percentage is inaccurate.
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    (wild guess du jour)
    99.99+% of weapons owned by civilian citizens of the United states have never and will never be used to shoot another human being.
    That should make you happy.

    But perhaps the reason it doesn't is because you invented that percentage off your head and that percentage is inaccurate.
    gee neverfly
    did you get that from the "wild guess" hint?
    or
    did someone else tell you?
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    did you get that from the "wild guess" hint?
    or
    did someone else tell you?
    Nah, I already knew. Hey, I'm just sayin'... Avoid such a very wild guess.
    Because it is off. And that far off can be misleading.
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    reading all this stuff how being prepared and killing a million home intruders and taking over the job of the police forces, to justify the need for having the same weaponary as they do, lead me to it. it sounds like a militia regime.
    reminds me of back to the future II when biff took over.

    is monty python still active?
     

  34. #134  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    reading all this stuff how being prepared and killing a million home intruders and taking over the job of the police forces, to justify the need for having the same weaponary as they do, lead me to it. it sounds like a militia regime.
    reminds me of back to the future II when biff took over.
    You misunderstand what a police force is. You also over-estimate their response time.

    I can arrest a person. I am not a police officer. I also can file for and get a warrant on another party- but the trick here is that as long as trained officers are available- the court will decide to refer it to them. I am still legally permitted.
    The police force is to augment civilian control, not replace it. The police are to respond when things get out of hand, not to rule with an iron fist.
    They are for maintaining order, not for maintaining responsibility.

    The rest of your post is too exaggerated to bother with.
    Meraxes likes this.
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    my whole post was exaggerated, not just the rest of it.
    RedPanda likes this.
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Oh, ok.
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Jocular, the 5.56 rarely goes straight through. It yaws and fragements.
    Perhaps with lead-exposed tips, hollow point; however, I've retrieved 5.56 FMC bullets from wood, hard and soft, and also seen that when fired through big chunks of animal tissue (meat), those surely do not fragment in soft shit like bodies.

    However, I do not mean to imply there is anything inherently wrong with 5.56, or any other rifle caliber, for that matter. If you have ever carried and used an M-14/M1-A rifle, you are aware of the (faulted) reasoning expressed by our military that 5.56 allows each user to carry more ammunition, firearm is lighter, etc. After introduction in "Nam" of the 5.56 caliber, I have heard many who were there claim a fallen soldier having an M-14 often exchanged weapons with the uninjured guy carryuing 5.56 M-16. This is off thread, sorry. Problems chambering were usually cited for dislike of the M-16. The "fix" was ridiculous, (forward-assist), as it failed to address the cause of incomplete chambering, and, as you likely know, a really strong thumb is needed to effectively work the forward assist; better to hit it with a rock.

    My regrets if I have been "read" as opposed to rifles in any way; I am not. I would feel good knowing that every law-abiding American household contained an AK-47, if they did, or better still, buy American, a good AR-15. jocular
     

  38. #138  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    reading all this stuff how being prepared and killing a million home intruders and taking over the job of the police forces, to justify the need for having the same weaponary as they do, lead me to it. it sounds like a militia regime.
    reminds me of back to the future II when biff took over.

    is monty python still active?
    At least you understand half of what I was saying.


    The idea is that police forces tend to get corrupt if the citizens have no alternative means of enforcing the law. You can see this all over the place, in nations all over the world. There are cowed, weak minded citizens just laying down and accepting it when their police take bribes, work with criminals, and even become outright criminals themselves while wearing a badge. They can't fire them for being corrupt because then they'd have no way to maintain order.

    In the USA, a town can elect anyone to be the Sheriff by a popular vote. That person need not ever have been a police officer before in their life, but immediately they will become chief of police in that town. That person may then immediately fire all the other police, and deputize ordinary citizens, immediately granting those citizens police power. This provides a way to very quickly purge a corrupt police force.

    What is it that you're doubting? That it would ever come to this point? It already is at that point in many towns and countries around the world.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    not doubting, but kinda shocked seeing the usa heading that way.
     

  40. #140  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    In the USA, a town can elect anyone to be the Sheriff by a popular vote.


    That's highly dependent on where you live...there is no uniform set of laws on how people are elected, appointed, nor what positions they might hold. In most of New England, for example, where I was raised, there's no such thing as a Sheriff. But there is a town Constable.

    Anyhow it's somewhat of an erroneous argument anyhow, the 2nd amendment is about the National Guard system. The right for an individual weapons comes more from English Common law to protect oneself than from the 2nd Amendment--it more properly falls under the 9th amendment.
    sculptor likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I am personally not worried about the violations, attacks, on the constitution being pushed by democrats concerning the second amendment. The Supreme Court will shoot them down.
    On this one, you are naive, my friend! Of late, the Supreme Court has acted often as though it were "in the pocket" of the presiding Administration. I have personally lost faith in it because of some of it's "befriended" decisions. jocular
     

  42. #142  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    To me as an outsider ( not American ) it is utterly incromprehensible how something like "a right to bear arms" can be morally or legally justified the way it is in the US, and even more so is it incomprehensible how the arms lobby could have been allowed to become so politically influential. This part of the constitution is clearly just a historical artifact ( it may have been appropriate in its day ), and needs to be disposed of sooner rather than later.

    That's just my personal opinion though.
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    But, then again, Markus, you don't live here. You've not the experience of our traditions, nor the political views. Part of the problem, is our 2 party system, and the general distain, and distrust of the citizens for "their" government". Some say, that it started during the "vietnam war" which wasn't a "war" at all---it was a "police action that happened in a theatre of opperations". Our political parties are not set up to represent "the common man"----this becomes obvious with the "democratic party" which is the least democratic with it's "super delegates" each of which has up to the equilivant of 30,000 votes compared to ordinary citizens. Perhaps, one day, the promise of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" will actually come to pass, or maybe, we'll eventually drop the inaccurate rhetoric, and develope something approximating honesty in politics.

    Until then, the citizens will seek to be able to defend their ever diminishing "rights" any damned way they can.
    Perhaps not?
    Another example, is the "posted speed limit" which is commonly violated. Get on any highway, and the average speed of any group of vehicles is usually running between 5 and 10 miles above that posted "speed limit", and near the metropolitan areas even faster than that.

    On average, we do not love our government. We tolerate them.
     

  44. #144  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Our political parties are not set up to represent "the common man
    If that is the case, then there is a fundamental flaw in your system. Again, just my opinion.
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    An opinion commonly shared here.
     

  46. #146  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    [irony]

    Don't worry, US citizens. If your government goes all tyrannical and full dictator on you, the rest of the world will come to your aid and impose regime change, enforcing democracy once more.

    [/irony]
    What's even more ironic is that you're probably posting from a country that participated in such forced regime changes.
     

  47. #147  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    not doubting, but kinda shocked seeing the usa heading that way.
    It's not headed that way any more than any other society. All police forces tend toward corruption if they have no competition. That's because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Having to compete with the citizens prevents the police from obtaining absolute power. If you let them have the monopoly on lawful violence, then who's going to oppose them when they start committing crimes themselves? They'll always be able to argue that the job they are doing is better than the alternative (that being total anarchy). Even the bribe takers can say that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    In the USA, a town can elect anyone to be the Sheriff by a popular vote.


    That's highly dependent on where you live...there is no uniform set of laws on how people are elected, appointed, nor what positions they might hold. In most of New England, for example, where I was raised, there's no such thing as a Sheriff. But there is a town Constable.


    True. I think each state has its own rules.

    My major point, though, was that the newly elected sheriff/constable/police chief needs to have a pool of qualified replacements available if he wants to immediately fire and replace his officers.


    Anyhow it's somewhat of an erroneous argument anyhow, the 2nd amendment is about the National Guard system. The right for an individual weapons comes more from English Common law to protect oneself than from the 2nd Amendment--it more properly falls under the 9th amendment.


    At the time the amendment was made, many private citizens owned cannons. There's no mention of a National Guard system, only a "Well Regulated Militia". The words "Necessary to the security of a free state" kind of imply that they were worried about the possibility of a military coup happening further down the road. Lots of nations have had those happen.

    I think it's a good idea to make sure some of your armed citizens are not subject to being pressed into military service by order of the President.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To me as an outsider ( not American ) it is utterly incromprehensible how something like "a right to bear arms" can be morally or legally justified the way it is in the US, and even more so is it incomprehensible how the arms lobby could have been allowed to become so politically influential. This part of the constitution is clearly just a historical artifact ( it may have been appropriate in its day ), and needs to be disposed of sooner rather than later.

    That's just my personal opinion though.
    I notice that in Great Britain, most of its police are also not armed. I guess if an unarmed police force runs amok, you could probably replace them with unarmed citizens.

    I mean, I know they have support from armed backup, but it's harder to bribe the SWAT team. They're not making subjective decisions that are hard to scrutinize like a police detective or a patrol officer is.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  48. #148  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    At the time the amendment was made, many private citizens owned cannons. There's no mention of a National Guard system, only a "Well Regulated Militia". The words "Necessary to the security of a free state" kind of imply that they were worried about the possibility of a military coup happening further down the road. Lots of nations have had those happen.

    I think it's a good idea to make sure some of your armed citizens are not subject to being pressed into military service by order of the President.
    Even though I agree with you, it's quite likely though that wasn't in the intent of the Constitutional framers---the idea of a well regulated militia is mentioned in two places...the 2nd admendment and in

    Article 1, Section 8 where Congress is granted the power to regulate that militia and the President charged to command that force. Under the Constitutioin there is no such thing as a militia that CANNOT be called to national service by Congress and put under the President--it is in defacto what would become the National Guard system.

    There are several cases that reinforce this point and rule that civilians do not have the right to raise private armies (aka private "unregulated" militia).
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    idk, that sounds like you have the worlds worst police force and heading towards a civil war. if something like egypt would take place in usa, there wouldn't be enough space for all the graves.
     

  50. #150  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    [irony]

    Don't worry, US citizens. If your government goes all tyrannical and full dictator on you, the rest of the world will come to your aid and impose regime change, enforcing democracy once more.

    [/irony]
    What's even more ironic is that you're probably posting from a country that participated in such forced regime changes.
    Yes, I am posting from the UK. Here, millions of people took to the streets to protest against starting the last war in Iraq, but our government ignored us. Perhaps, if we had guns, we could have risen up and overthrown our tyrannical government, to make sure that atrocity didn't happen.

    If the people do not agree with what the government is doing, we should shoot them, yes?
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    The courts have been pretty clear about the second amendment. Militias are not the government nor are they made up of soldiers. Militias are made up of the people. It is the people's militia, it is funded and armed by each individual citizen, not the government, and every citizen has a duty to be armed, ready and prepared to defend the constitution, themselves, their community, their state and their country. It is a separation of power that state and federal governments have no bussiness infringing upon, and every attempt to so is as foolish as a man flicking a grizzly bear on the nose while it is sleeping.

    The right, the duty, of citizens to keep and bear arms to defend the constitution and protect themselves against infringements upon their lives, rights and liberties by criminals and the government is, has been, and will remain, critical to the very survival of the Republic, and the people are not going to give up that right, they are not going to neglect their duty.

    Ignorant people do not understand the power an armed people have nor the fear an armed population places on politicians. Without that fear, without that power, politicians will be your tyrant. If democrats and some republicans keep infringing upon the people's right, their duty, to keep and bear arms, the ignorant will get a lesson, first hand, on what a militia is, how and why they can form and how powerful the people are. Remember, we are not talking about a group of 100 or so Americans. We are talking about 10s of millions of armed Americans.

    A few foolish politicians in Washington think they can trample on the peoples right, their duty, to keep and bear arms, and they can't. It is a fight they cannot win and it is a fight, if they keep asking for it, that will end as them being labelled traders.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 13th, 2013 at 08:59 AM.
     

  52. #152  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If democrats and some republicans keep infringing upon the people's right, their duty, to keep and bear arms, the ignorant will get a lesson, first hand, on what a militia is, how and why they can form and how powerful the people are.
    And then the militia will get a lesson, first hand, on who all the federal and national enforcement agencies are and how much more powerful they are than any militia.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    it will be interesting to check statistics after that war.
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    [irony]Don't worry, US citizens. If your government goes all tyrannical and full dictator on you, the rest of the world will come to your aid and impose regime change, enforcing democracy once more.[/irony]
    What's even more ironic is that you're probably posting from a country that participated in such forced regime changes.
    Yes, I am posting from the UK. Here, millions of people took to the streets to protest against starting the last war in Iraq, but our government ignored us. Perhaps, if we had guns, we could have risen up and overthrown our tyrannical government, to make sure that atrocity didn't happen.If the people do not agree with what the government is doing, we should shoot them, yes?
    When you prod a few, and they act, you are dealing with lone wolves... In American we almost always frown upon the actions of lone wolves but, this issue, this fight, will not be fought by lone wolves, 10s of millions of Americans will rise up and fight. Millions more will support those actions. This is the power and beauty of the second amendment.
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If democrats and some republicans keep infringing upon the people's right, their duty, to keep and bear arms, the ignorant will get a lesson, first hand, on what a militia is, how and why they can form and how powerful the people are.
    And then the militia will get a lesson, first hand, on who all the federal and national enforcement agencies are and how much more powerful they are than any militia.
    Your think to highly and to much of the federal government and their agencies, and far to little of local law inforcement agencies and the people. You are making the same mistake, same type of foolish expectations, that some politicians are.
     

  56. #156  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Your think to highly and to much of the federal government and their agencies, and far to little of local law inforcement agencies and the people.
    And that reply is to be expected from someone who has a history of anti-government paranoia.

    But, I look forward to you charging towards the White House, confident in the knowledge that that the army/feds are poorly trained and poorly equipped.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    it will be interesting to check statistics after that war.
    It would not be good but, Americans are not going to give up their right to bear arms. I guess one could almost imagine what would or could happen by looking at the LA riots, combined with Katrina, then add millions of armed civilians hunting down those who want to take their arms, with millions of prisoners running loose, millions of others who are disenfranchised and millions just trying to survive.
     

  58. #158  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    millions of armed civilians hunting down those who want to take their arms
    Yeah!!
    Shoot them! Shoot them dead!!

    Fuck democracy!
    Shoot them all dead in their homes!!!
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Your think to highly and to much of the federal government and their agencies, and far to little of local law inforcement agencies and the people.
    And that reply is to be expected from someone who has a history of anti-government paranoia.But, I look forward to you charging towards the White House, confident in the knowledge that that the army/feds are poorly trained and poorly equipped.
    I am not the one picking a fight with the right of the people to own and bear arms. I surely do not want to see it continue but, at least I don't put my head in the sand and believe Americans are going to roll over and take it.

    It can get real bad, and fast, so if you are going to advocate for, if you are going to push for this fight, at least know what you are asking for. The people are not going to disarm.

    How long do you think it's going to take before a law inforcement agent makes a mistake in NY concerning this issue? Will that light the fire? Maybe an incident somewhere else lights that fire? Who knows but, I know it's foolish and stupid to play with fire.
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    millions of armed civilians hunting down those who want to take their arms
    Yeah!!Shoot them! Shoot them dead!!Fuck democracy!Shoot them all dead in their homes!!!
    You know what they say.... Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for lunch, and liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

    You can't be the wolf, have your lunch vote, and then cry when the lamb turns out to be prepared and well armed to protect itself.
     

  61. #161  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    millions of armed civilians hunting down those who want to take their arms
    Yeah!!Shoot them! Shoot them dead!!Fuck democracy!Shoot them all dead in their homes!!!
    You know what they say.... Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for lunch, and liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
    So you do advocate abandoning democracy and instead relying on guns to mete out justice?
    O.....kay.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    millions of armed civilians hunting down those who want to take their arms
    Yeah!!Shoot them! Shoot them dead!!Fuck democracy!Shoot them all dead in their homes!!!
    You know what they say.... Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for lunch, and liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
    So you do advocate abandoning democracy and instead relying on guns to mete out justice?O.....kay.
    The US is a constitutional republic. The form of democracy you speak of is not America or American.
     

  63. #163  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If democrats and some republicans keep infringing upon the people's right, their duty, to keep and bear arms, the ignorant will get a lesson, first hand, on what a militia is, how and why they can form and how powerful the people are.
    And then the militia will get a lesson, first hand, on who all the federal and national enforcement agencies are and how much more powerful they are than any militia.
    You mean just like how the Taliban is getting just such a lesson right now? It's been how many years and we're still not out of Afghanistan?

    But what you're forgetting is that, the moment the civil war begins, millions of Americans would immediately quit paying their taxes.


    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Your think to highly and to much of the federal government and their agencies, and far to little of local law inforcement agencies and the people.
    And that reply is to be expected from someone who has a history of anti-government paranoia.

    But, I look forward to you charging towards the White House, confident in the knowledge that that the army/feds are poorly trained and poorly equipped.
    I'm sorry that you look forward to that. May I assume, then, that you are one of the people who would benefit if the USA became a totalitarian dictatorship?



    Quote Originally Posted by Speedfreak

    Yes, I am posting from the UK. Here, millions of people took to the streets to protest against starting the last war in Iraq, but our government ignored us. Perhaps, if we had guns, we could have risen up and overthrown our tyrannical government, to make sure that atrocity didn't happen.

    If the people do not agree with what the government is doing, we should shoot them, yes?
    For a severe enough grievance, it would be better for some people to die now than for whole generations to be born, live, and die under an unfair political system.

    When you're faced with two bad possibilities, one horrible, and the other even still more horrible, refusing to choose either of them is just cowardice. (And ultimately amounts to choosing the second option anyway.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  64. #164  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    So you do advocate abandoning democracy and instead relying on guns to mete out justice?O.....kay.
    The US is a constitutional republic. The form of democracy you speak of is not America or American.
    I'll take that as a very definite "Yes!".
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  65. #165  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You mean just like how the Taliban is getting just such a lesson right now? It's been how many years and we're still not out of Afghanistan?
    No, I meant in America.
    Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

    And I didn't think you would be hiding in the hills.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But what you're forgetting is that, the moment the civil war begins, millions of Americans would immediately quit paying their taxes.
    So, now we have gone from "10's of millons" (plucked from thin air by Gonzo) to "civil war".
    Well, once you have started your civil war in America, you have lost.
    Game over.
    And don't come begging to the rest of the world for hand-outs.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    So you do advocate abandoning democracy and instead relying on guns to mete out justice?O.....kay.
    The US is a constitutional republic. The form of democracy you speak of is not America or American.
    I'll take that as a very definite "Yes!".
    Of course it is, and thats because the U.S. government is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. We vote for our leaders, then it is them, not the people, who make all the decisions and run the government. Politicians are to be controlled and restrained by the constitution and rule of law. If they won't or cannot be, then it is on the people to stop them.
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    this is funny and sad at once.
    MrMojo1 and RedPanda like this.
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The right for an individual weapons comes more from English Common law to protect oneself than from the 2nd Amendment--it more properly falls under the 9th amendment.[/COLOR]
    well said:

    (the 9th)
    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    ...........
    however?
    does that beg the question
    Is weapons ownership "enumerated" under the 2nd amendment?
    and if so, then does the 9th still apply?

    .................
    methinks phraseology really matters here
    (where's a logician when you really need one)

    .................................................. .................................................. .......
    ((when you are being mugged on a dark and stormy night---are you gonna call for a cop? or a logician?))

    ... if I remember the posting accurately, Chris once used his inner logician and didn't need the cop....?...
    Last edited by sculptor; April 13th, 2013 at 01:47 PM.
     

  69. #169  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Yes, I am posting from the UK. Here, millions of people took to the streets to protest against starting the last war in Iraq, but our government ignored us. Perhaps, if we had guns, we could have risen up and overthrown our tyrannical government, to make sure that atrocity didn't happen.
    I know it's an aside, but I'm always curious as to why a person disagreed with the Iraq War. Perhaps via PM sometime?

    Anyway, the point is that you've no business criticizing Americans for imposing regime change when your own country was just as involved.

    If the people do not agree with what the government is doing, we should shoot them, yes?
    Is that how you define tyranny? A disagreement in policy between the people and its government?
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Masters Degree mat5592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    601
    i hate when, in gun debates, people compare the U.S. to other places like the UK. "the UK has gun laws and they have such a low murder rate! that's obviously what we need to do here!!!"

    the fact is, the situations are very different and it's not quite that simple just to compare countries like that. the reality is the UK never had a problem with murder and guns (at least not in the past 100 years). actually, the murder rate there has only increased over the past century through all of the gun laws passed. but again, the UK never had a problem with it, so this increase is very small and insignificant, but the point is you can't use it as a justification for gun control here in the states. both violent crime and murder have dropped quite dramatically over the past 20 years, it's unfortunate the media likes to sensationalize these isolated events and continue the fear mongering. we can only hope that the reduction in gun crimes will continue the current trend. i don't support pulling guns from the citizens as i don't think it will work given our situation, and law-abiding citizens aren't the problem anyway. i do, though, fully support background checks and targeting the real problem, criminals and keeping weapons from mentally unstable individuals.
    Neverfly likes this.
     

  71. #171  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well said Mat5592. In science, a claim of cause and effect requires evidence, and evidence that imposing gun control laws will change the level of violence in the USA appears to be lacking. Surely isolated incidents could be found (outliers) where such laws would have made a difference (and other incidents can be found where more lenient laws might have helped as well, I am sure - if we're content to look at outliers.)


    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You mean just like how the Taliban is getting just such a lesson right now? It's been how many years and we're still not out of Afghanistan?
    No, I meant in America.
    Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

    And I didn't think you would be hiding in the hills.
    That's why I used the word "like".

    Clearly the Taliban isn't a whole lot more well equipped than the citizenry of the USA would be in the event of a civil war, but they're holding their own pretty good. What makes you think the US military would be more successful in a civil war than it is in Afghanistan?





    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But what you're forgetting is that, the moment the civil war begins, millions of Americans would immediately quit paying their taxes.
    So, now we have gone from "10's of millons" (plucked from thin air by Gonzo) to "civil war".
    Well, once you have started your civil war in America, you have lost.
    Game over.
    And don't come begging to the rest of the world for hand-outs.
    Well, if 10 million Americans decide to wage a civil war to restructure the government, against the other 304 million, that wouldn't exactly be a case of democracy asserting itself, would it?

    The relative combat ability of the US military would be the least of their problems.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    this is funny and sad at once.
    It certainly is when, Americans don't even know the type of government they have. For the record it is a democratic republic. Initially organized as a Confederation of States, then changed to a federal republic with constitutional edicts.
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Yes, I am posting from the UK. Here, millions of people took to the streets to protest against starting the last war in Iraq, but our government ignored us. Perhaps, if we had guns, we could have risen up and overthrown our tyrannical government, to make sure that atrocity didn't happen.
    I know it's an aside, but I'm always curious as to why a person disagreed with the Iraq War. Perhaps via PM sometime?

    Anyway, the point is that you've no business criticizing Americans for imposing regime change when your own country was just as involved.

    If the people do not agree with what the government is doing, we should shoot them, yes?
    Is that how you define tyranny? A disagreement in policy between the people and its government?
    curveball should ring a bell for one.
     

  74. #174  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Clearly the Taliban isn't a whole lot more well equipped than the citizenry of the USA would be in the event of a civil war, but they're holding their own pretty good. What makes you think the US military would be more successful in a civil war than it is in Afghanistan?
    They are also not waging a civil war.
    There are waging a guerilla war (including the use of terrorist acts) to attack the Afghanistan government (and the troops sent in to help that government).

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Well, if 10 million Americans decide to wage a civil war to restructure the government, against the other 304 million, that wouldn't exactly be a case of democracy asserting itself, would it?
    I agree, it wouldn't.
    It would be a minority trying to impose their will on the majority through violence - much like the Taliban are.

    I would say that I find it surprising that you view the Taliban as such an inspiring role-model - but I am not completely surprised.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
     

  75. #175  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Anyway, the point is that you've no business criticizing Americans for imposing regime change when your own country was just as involved.
    Did you not notice that I don't agree with the government of my own country on this issue?
     

  76. #176  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Anyway, the point is that you've no business criticizing Americans for imposing regime change when your own country was just as involved.
    Did you not notice that I don't agree with the government of my own country on this issue?
    That's an odd question. Of course I did. I even asked you to explain why you disagreed, offering you to send me a PM with your argument. (Don't think I didn't notice your failure to comply)

    Your comment lumped all Americans together ("Don't worry, US citizens.") without any consideration given to the number of people who disagreed with the war in Iraq. So why is it only ironic to disregard differing political opinions in the US, but not Britain?
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    because your typing showed that you did agree 100% despising/or knowing all the facts. and he didn't adressed all americans, but you.
     

  78. #178  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    because your typing showed that you did agree 100% despising/or knowing all the facts.
    Try again in English, please.

    and he didn't adressed all americans, but you.
    What about "Don't worry, US citizens" don't you understand?
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    flip flop blipablop.
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    I have no sympathy for any pro-gun supporter who opposes background checks on buyers. Even if you believe the (utterly paranoid) idea that gun ownership somehow defends against tyranny(!), allowing the mentally disturbed and criminally minded to own guns is a recipe for disaster.
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    From the significant rise in knife attacks, I guess we should also look at knife control laws. Why on earth would anyone would want a knife with an extremely sharp blade of more than a couple inches (which most jurisdictions define as a "deadly weapon") is beyond me, let alone buying a set of a dozen or more. Even the most seriously insane criminals among us can buy them by the dozen without any background check or license and from many retail outlets (such as Bed, Bath & Beyond). How can anyone seriously justify needing a knife with a sharp 20-inch blade, just to slice a loaf of bread?

    And, yes, I'm as serious as the gun control law proponents.

    However, let's say, with guns and knives outlawed, nearly every adult owns a car — you know, those machines of tremendous mass and power (plus a rather large amount of gasoline, including what you can stuff into the trunk in gas cans) that can easily plow through innocent crowds at malls, schools, churches, movie theaters, etc. Those things with which people already are engaging in road rage. Why on earth anyone would need a "muscle car" with an engine producing several hundred horsepower is beyond me. That kind of power allows speeds in excess of 200 mph, which no one can attain on any street in the nation.

    And, yes, I'm as serious as the gun control law proponents.

    The answer, of course, is to address public mental health issues more fervently rather than trying to take away or restrict potential weapons for the average citizenry. For example, bullying (especially among children and young adults) must be addressed, because we often hear that mass murders are the result of bullying. Bullying should at least be a misdemeanor if not an outright felony, yet we have not heard hardly a peep about this. Whatever happened to enforcing all those laws about stalking — isn't bullying a form of stalking?

    stalking
    n.
    to follow or pursue (another person) persistently in a harassing and, typically, obsessive way.


    For the most part, laws on restricting/eliminating weapons are as ineffective as the war on drugs because the criminally-minded people who want weapons or drugs will get them. Again, we should address public mental health issues that lead to people thinking that they "need" drugs. But I digress.

    What the nation seems unable to grasp is that the vast majority of these mass murderers are, first of all, suicidal, and second to that, desirous to take others with them. These mass murders used to be mostly murder-suicides within a family, but now the collateral murder victims have expanded into the community. Where before we would simply read about families getting wiped out and thinking they were "messed up" families, and perhaps the cynical among us thinking good riddance to yet another "messed up" family, but now we need to realize that we are a "messed up" society — and we are. Incidents show us that criminally-minded people typically will attack people whom they know they can overpower. The Newtown massacre, that has aroused national sentiment, shows this. It wasn't a muscle-bound behemoth of a mountain man who did this, but more of a "98-pound weakling".

    Society needs to address itself in its entirety, and not just its potentially criminally-minded elements.
    sculptor and mat5592 like this.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
     

  82. #182  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Anyway, the point is that you've no business criticizing Americans for imposing regime change when your own country was just as involved.
    Did you not notice that I don't agree with the government of my own country on this issue?
    That's an odd question. Of course I did. I even asked you to explain why you disagreed, offering you to send me a PM with your argument. (Don't think I didn't notice your failure to comply)

    Your comment lumped all Americans together ("Don't worry, US citizens.") without any consideration given to the number of people who disagreed with the war in Iraq. So why is it only ironic to disregard differing political opinions in the US, but not Britain?
    I think you are misunderstanding the irony in my original post. This thread is about gun control, and one of the arguments against gun control is the need for citizens to be able to fight against a tyrannical government. My argument is that those citizens need not worry about a tyrannical government, as the rest of the world will come to your aid and enforce a regime change. This is what is done for countries in need of regime change, but only where those countries have resources that the liberators want access to. And there lies the irony - the rest of the world wants what the US has got.

    There is no need for me to PM you as to why I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq. I don't agree for the same reason as all the other millions of people who protested against the invasion. There were no WMDs and thus no legal basis to invade. The real reason for the invasion was to secure access to resources and we all knew this before the invasion.
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    I have no sympathy for any pro-gun supporter who opposes background checks on buyers. Even if you believe the (utterly paranoid) idea that gun ownership somehow defends against tyranny(!), allowing the mentally disturbed and criminally minded to own guns is a recipe for disaster.
    The federal government has no business running background checks on individual private deals. Where in the constitution does it say that Washington cannot sell a rifle to Adams without the federal governments approval? Seperation of powers, constitutionally defended and protected rights and powers, must be, by law, respected and adhered to. You can vote for a politician but, neither you nor your politician get to freely take or trample on the powers and rights of the people.
     

  84. #184  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Yes, that's why if the criminally minded has a gun, you just shoot him.
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    I have no sympathy for any pro-gun supporter who opposes background checks on buyers. Even if you believe the (utterly paranoid) idea that gun ownership somehow defends against tyranny(!), allowing the mentally disturbed and criminally minded to own guns is a recipe for disaster.
    The federal government has no business running background checks on individual private deals. Where in the constitution does it say that Washington cannot sell a rifle to Adams without the federal governments approval? Seperation of powers, constitutionally defended and protected rights and powers, must be, by law, respected and adhered to. You can vote for a politician but, neither you nor your politician get to freely take or trample on the powers and rights of the people.
    Are you really telling me you are okay having the mentally disturbed/disabled buying guns?

    Are you really okay with career criminals buying guns?

    Put aside your high talk about rights, and think of the natural consequences of such actions
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    I have no sympathy for any pro-gun supporter who opposes background checks on buyers. Even if you believe the (utterly paranoid) idea that gun ownership somehow defends against tyranny(!), allowing the mentally disturbed and criminally minded to own guns is a recipe for disaster.
    The federal government has no business running background checks on individual private deals. Where in the constitution does it say that Washington cannot sell a rifle to Adams without the federal governments approval? Seperation of powers, constitutionally defended and protected rights and powers, must be, by law, respected and adhered to. You can vote for a politician but, neither you nor your politician get to freely take or trample on the powers and rights of the people.
    Are you really telling me you are okay having the mentally disturbed/disabled buying guns? Are you really okay with career criminals buying guns?Put aside your high talk about rights, and think of the natural consequences of such actions
    Lets be honest here, it is already illegal for career criminals and the insane to own or possess guns. The laws already on the books make it a crime for them to own firearms, and guess what? They dont care about you or your laws, and suggesting that if more laws can be past it will make the insane and criminal shake in their boots, and stop them from owning and using weapons, is ignorant.

    What gun control people want is for law biding people, not the insane or criminals, to be restricted and limited in their constitutional rights.

    The idea that anyone would advocate that americans must get approval from the federal government in order to exercise a constitutional right is disturbing to me. Would you advocate for federal approval required in order for any and all Americans to exercise their freedom of speech? Of course you would not, because it would then no longer be a right...... So why attempt to do it to the right to bear arms, which by law, shall not be infringed upon?
    sculptor and Neverfly like this.
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SE15 View Post
    I have no sympathy for any pro-gun supporter who opposes background checks on buyers. Even if you believe the (utterly paranoid) idea that gun ownership somehow defends against tyranny(!), allowing the mentally disturbed and criminally minded to own guns is a recipe for disaster.
    The federal government has no business running background checks on individual private deals. Where in the constitution does it say that Washington cannot sell a rifle to Adams without the federal governments approval? Seperation of powers, constitutionally defended and protected rights and powers, must be, by law, respected and adhered to. You can vote for a politician but, neither you nor your politician get to freely take or trample on the powers and rights of the people.
    Are you really telling me you are okay having the mentally disturbed/disabled buying guns? Are you really okay with career criminals buying guns?Put aside your high talk about rights, and think of the natural consequences of such actions
    Lets be honest here, it is already illegal for career criminals and the insane to own or possess guns. The laws already on the books make it a crime for them to own firearms, and guess what? They dont care about you or your laws, and suggesting that if more laws can be past it will make the insane and criminal shake in their boots, and stop them from owning and using weapons, is ignorant

    What gun control people want is for law biding people, not the insane or criminals, to be restricted and limited in their constitutional rights.

    The idea that anyone would advocate that americans must get approval from the federal government in order to exercise a constitutional right is disturbing to me. Would you advocate for federal approval required in order for any and all Americans to exercise their freedom of speech? Of course you would not, because it would then no longer be a right...... So why attempt to do it to the right to bear arms, which by law, shall not be infringed upon?
    Ah, the old "we can't stop it so let's not bother trying" argument. I bet you don't take that line in response to other issues - like prostitution, illegal drugs, immigration, child porn etc ...

    I don't want stop you from owning a gun, much like I don't want to stop you from driving a cars - but I damn well want you to be competent before allowing you to sit behind the wheel of a car. Is that really so much to ask?? Or do you also want no checks on drivers?


    Just where you know where I stand, the fact that the constitution protects your right to own a gun means almost nothing to me if you can not defend that idea by itself. Just because a law exists is not a reason by itself to keep the law, it needs to be defended on it's own merits. I am happy for the law to remain though, it just needs a bit of common sense precautions.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
     

  88. #188  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    And this thread goes nowhere while peoples continue to make claims that current laws are sufficient. They are not:

    "“Undocumented private party gun sale transactions account for as many as 40 percent of all gun sales,” said Wintemute. “They are quick and convenient, and their anonymity attracts those who put privacy at a premium. These same attributes make private-party gun sales a principal option for a felon or other prohibited person.”Gun shows are a leading source of guns used in criminal violence in Northern California, the United States, Mexico and Canada. "

    http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome...udy/index.html



    "Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46% of gun show investigations"
    ATF report: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun%202000.pdf


    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 15th, 2013 at 06:00 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    It is illegal for a criminal to purchase a gun, anywhere.

    None of this is about preventing crime, it is about infringing upon rights. It's about going after gun owners, or possible gun owners, whom are law biding citizens.

    I am telling you, its a fight gun grabbers will not win.
     

  90. #190  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And this thread goes nowhere while peoples continue to make claims that current laws are sufficient. They are not:

    "“Undocumented private party gun sale transactions account for as many as 40 percent of all gun sales,” said Wintemute. “They are quick and convenient, and their anonymity attracts those who put privacy at a premium. These same attributes make private-party gun sales a principal option for a felon or other prohibited person.”Gun shows are a leading source of guns used in criminal violence in Northern California, the United States, Mexico and Canada. "

    UC Davis Health System Feature Story: UC Davis report exposes loopholes in gun-control laws



    "Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46% of gun show investigations"
    ATF report: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun%202000.pdf


    So... if you provide evidence that criminals will work around the laws, then more laws to be worked around are needed?

    And leave law-abiding citizens defenseless from those that acquire firearms illegally?
    gonzales56 likes this.
     

  91. #191  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    So... if you provide evidence that criminals will work around the laws, then more laws to be worked around are needed?
    The thing is those criminals are working within the law. There's no requirement for checks between non-gun dealer sellers, as often happens at gun shows, and those felons.

    And leave law-abiding citizens defenseless from those that acquire firearms illegally?

    A straw man argument being used by the NRA that even it's membership in large part rejects. No one is proposing that people can't own firearms unless they are felons or legally been found by a court to be insane.


    SE15 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  92. #192  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    So your suggestion is that gun shows should be more heavily regulated?
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    So... if you provide evidence that criminals will work around the laws, then more laws to be worked around are needed?
    The thing is those criminals are working within the law. There's no requirement for checks between non-gun dealer sellers, as often happens at gun shows, and those felons.
    And leave law-abiding citizens defenseless from those that acquire firearms illegally?
    A straw man argument being used by the NRA that even it's membership in large part rejects. No one is proposing that people can't own firearms unless they are felons or legally been found by a court to be insane.
    A criminal buying a gun at a gun show is not legal, they are not working within the law, they are violating the law. It is a crime.
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    So your suggestion is that gun shows should be more heavily regulated?
    Unfortunately, that is not what they are suggesting at all though. They don't want a single unlicensed citizens to be able to sale/transfer or give a firearm to anyone.

    You know that rifle your grandpa gave you? They want that to be illegal. You know that hunting rifle you sold to your buddy? They want to stop you from doing that. None of it has anything to do with crime or criminals, it has to do with controlling, and by doing so, taking, a right away from the people.
     

  95. #195  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You keep just saying that but don't put up evidence Gonzales. At the Federal level there is no restriction, nor requirement for background sale for non-gun dealers--hence the loophole in current laws. A small number of states, such as California and New York made requirement that all gun sales go through background checks.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  96. #196  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Can you cite the loophole in question?
     

  97. #197  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Can you cite the loophole in question?
    Here's a good summation of the current laws with links to the actual laws.
    Federal Gun Control Laws - Laws That Affect Gun Collectors Note the laws on the books and requirements to check backgrounds, only apply to licensed gun dealers and private sales across state lines--the hole is there is no restriction of sales between instate non-dealers, which as it turns out make up roughly 40% of actual gun sales most often at gun shows. In most states, if you want a gun, it's as simple as walking into a gun show and buying one without any check.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Can you cite the loophole in question?
    As an avid goers of gun shows, the loophole is this:

    A private gun seller can sell their weapons from their personal cache without a background check. So if you are a criminal and want to purchase a gun, without a licensed dealer making you submit to ATF/FBI paperwork, the place to go is a gun show.

    If you want to legally transfer a weapons ownership from one person to another person, they you only have to file the paper work with a license arms dealer or police department. One on my co-workers did as such when she was given a revolver by her father before he did.
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    And that is the way it should be. A citizen should not be forced to get approval from the federal government in order to buy, sell, trade or give a firearm to another citizen.

    The right to bear arms is not a previlage, it is not a gift, it is a right, by law, that shall not be infringed upon. Giving the federal government the power, the authority, to approve or deny the right of every single american to bear arms is unexceptable, uninforcable and foolish IMO.

    The minute a right can only be exercised by needing to get approval from the government it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege granted by the government.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 15th, 2013 at 09:51 PM.
     

  100. #200  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    If you file that paperwork, it shows who you sold it to?
     

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gun Control in the US
    By StukInaaroc in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 24th, 2014, 01:52 PM
  2. Laser Gun Ships...
    By spectre84 in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 6th, 2011, 07:30 AM
  3. Social Justice and the Gun
    By kojax in forum Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 24th, 2010, 04:37 PM
  4. Gauss gun
    By Cold Fusion in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 28th, 2008, 04:54 AM
  5. ----GUN
    By Kolt in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •