View Full Version : Was I Wrong in my defense of the 2 nd Admendment ?
Spider
03-09-2005, 12:17 PM
On the news , terrorist could buy guns here even those on a terrorist list .......
alkemical
03-09-2005, 12:51 PM
spider -
it doesn't matter - if guns are illegal - will criminals follow the law? No.
Allow guns to be legal - totalitarian states agree - gun control works.
Spider
03-09-2005, 12:55 PM
spider -
it doesn't matter - if guns are illegal - will criminals follow the law? No.
Allow guns to be legal - totalitarian states agree - gun control works.
I agree with all of that , but from what I understand 50 People on a terrorist Watch list bought some pretty impressive assualt Rifles ....... I see this as a problem ...... I dont think the answer is to out law guns , but I think there should be some major tweaks to the system
alkemical
03-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Maybe shutting down our boarders...... :0
Spider
03-09-2005, 01:01 PM
Maybe shutting down our boarders...... :0
That sounds nice , but the effect that would have on our Food Cost , would be staggering ...... I dont want to give up any freedom in the name of security , but I would like to see somthing done about Terrorist buying firearms ......
Bronco_Beerslug
03-09-2005, 01:07 PM
That sounds nice , but the effect that would have on our Food Cost , would be staggering ...... I dont want to give up any freedom in the name of security , but I would like to see somthing done about Terrorist buying firearms ......
How about something a little more preemptive like not letting terrorists in the country to buy weapons?
I agree with all of that , but from what I understand 50 People on a terrorist Watch list bought some pretty impressive assualt Rifles
Don't be confused by what the media calls "assault rifles" and what the correct term is. The media definition is as follows: If the barrel is less than 3", it's an (evil) Saturday Night Special, if it's longer than 3", it's an assault rifle.
....... I see this as a problem ...... I dont think the answer is to out law guns , but I think there should be some major tweaks to the system
Such as?
Suppose a terrorist buys a book on how to build a bomb (they do exist). Does that mean those of us who defend the publication of such materials need to rethink our defense of the 1st Amendment?
RaiderH8r
03-09-2005, 01:31 PM
How about something a little more preemptive like not letting terrorists in the country to buy weapons?
Or pre-emptive like going over there and slapping them around? Interesting take....I think I've got a new sig line.
Bronco_Beerslug
03-09-2005, 01:35 PM
Or pre-emptive like going over there and slapping them around? Interesting take....I think I've got a new sig line.
What are you talking about. Amazing how you continually read words into posts that don't exist!
How about not letting them into the country means how about not letting them into the country.
RaiderH8r
03-09-2005, 01:38 PM
What are you talking about. Amazing how you continually read words into posts that don't exist!
How about not letting them into the country means how about not letting them into the country.
Or we go 1 step further and go to their country and slap them around. You're almost there BB..... :woowoo:
Spider
03-09-2005, 01:43 PM
How about something a little more preemptive like not letting terrorists in the country to buy weapons?
That would be a start ;D
Don't be confused by what the media calls "assault rifles" and what the correct term is. The media definition is as follows: If the barrel is less than 3", it's an (evil) Saturday Night Special, if it's longer than 3", it's an assault rifle.
LOL , I understand the difference , and whats worse is so does a terrorist ...
Such as?
Suppose a terrorist buys a book on how to build a bomb (they do exist). Does that mean those of us who defend the publication of such materials need to rethink our defense of the 1st Amendment?
Good grief , talk about pulling Shiat out of your ass , first off these guys are not buying a book on how to build and Use firearms , they are Buying firearms ... Ready to use , maybe that part escaped you ......
RaiderH8r
03-09-2005, 01:46 PM
That would be a start ;D
LOL , I understand the difference , and whats worse is so does a terrorist ...
Good grief , talk about pulling Shiat out of your ass , first off these guys are not buying a book on how to build and Use firearms , they are Buying firearms ... Ready to use , maybe that part escaped you ......
I think he makes a good point regarding the first amendment. Basically, do we make the Anarchists' Cookbook readily available and protected under 1st amendment privileges? Discuss.
Spider
03-09-2005, 01:53 PM
I think he makes a good point regarding the first amendment. Basically, do we make the Anarchists' Cookbook readily available and protected under 1st amendment privileges? Discuss.
See I dont think he made a point ..... For example I can buy a book on Bombs the book itself doesnt make me go out and build a bomb , just gives me the knowledge to build one ....... and if I did build one , then that is on me , not the book , Now I dont give a Rats ass if the Average Joe buys a firearm , but what I do care about is some Jihad asswipe terrorist being able to do the same , Somewhere , there has to be law about foriegners comming here buying weapons , then trying to kill us with these weapons ...... I admit I have a funny stance on this ........ But I dont like it
RaiderH8r
03-09-2005, 01:56 PM
See I dont think he made a point ..... For example I can buy a book on Bombs the book itself doesnt make me go out and build a bomb , just gives me the knowledge to build one ....... and if I did build one , then that is on me , not the book , Now I dont give a Rats ass if the Average Joe buys a firearm , but what I do care about is some Jihad asswipe terrorist being able to do the same , Somewhere , there has to be law about foriegners comming here buying weapons , then trying to kill us with these weapons ...... I admit I have a funny stance on this ........ But I dont like it
However, that same angry terrorist type buys the same book you did and he does go out and decide to build a bomb. The mind is the most formidable weapon mankind every developed. Both cases you, being responsible, don't go out and use your newfound knowledge to inflict undue harm onto others. Just as you don't use your new gun in the same fashion.
Nothing you do will causally make you do something else, in all matters you have a choice.
Rascal
03-09-2005, 01:58 PM
The laws that exists are good enough, what the problem arises from the is lack of enforcement of those laws.
Spider
03-09-2005, 02:00 PM
However, that same angry terrorist type buys the same book you did and he does go out and decide to build a bomb. The mind is the most formidable weapon mankind every developed. Both cases you, being responsible, don't go out and use your newfound knowledge to inflict undue harm onto others. Just as you don't use your new gun in the same fashion.
Nothing you do will causally make you do something else, in all matters you have a choice.
Not realy , there is a difference in knowing , and executing ..... The book doesnt do the Damage , the Idiot reading the book does .....you cant hold an author responcible , no more then you can hold a Gun Manufacture responcible .......
Rascal
03-09-2005, 02:05 PM
Fine the gun doesn't do the damage..the idiot using the gun does. It's a circle jerk argument.
Spider
03-09-2005, 02:09 PM
Fine the gun doesn't do the damage..the idiot using the gun does. It's a circle jerk argument.
Thats not the point Bro , My point is , I think there should be some safeguards to stop Terrorist from buying Firrearms , the 2 nd Admendment doesnt realy address that .....
RaiderH8r
03-09-2005, 02:09 PM
Not realy , there is a difference in knowing , and executing ..... The book doesnt do the Damage , the Idiot reading the book does .....you cant hold an author responcible , no more then you can hold a Gun Manufacture responcible .......
We agree entirely. Blaming guns for murder is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat. I think the same logic applies for the book, but it certainly doesn't mean we re-evaluate the 1st amendment based on what some jerkoff does with the knowledge gained.
Rascal
03-09-2005, 02:13 PM
Thats not the point Bro , My point is , I think there should be some safeguards to stop Terrorist from buying Firrearms , the 2 nd Admendment doesnt realy address that .....
there are safeguards...called laws they just are enforced worth a ****.
So you propose to admending the 2nd amendment to read: you can own a gun...as long as you aren't a terroists.
And that is suppose to stop them? It doesn't matter if it's in big black letters all across the nation, if it isn't enforced they will get them.
Spider
03-09-2005, 02:15 PM
We agree entirely. Blaming guns for murder is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.
LOL . thats just aint right ..... But funny
I think the same logic applies for the book, but it certainly doesn't mean we re-evaluate the 1st amendment based on what some jerkoff does with the knowledge gained.
Maybe ,I will agree to a point , I dont want the 2 nd Admendment abolished , just tweaked about certian people buying firearms , for example Felons , People under 18 , Someone in a turbin wearing a tee shirt saying that Americans must die ........... We can start there ;D
Spider
03-09-2005, 02:16 PM
there are safeguards...called laws they just are enforced worth a ****.
So you propose to admending the 2nd amendment to read: you can own a gun...as long as you aren't a terroists.
And that is suppose to stop them? It doesn't matter if it's in big black letters all across the nation, if it isn't enforced they will get them.
Somthing like that ..see my post about a Turbin and a tee shirt .Call it Racial Profiling , i dont care ......
Rascal
03-09-2005, 02:22 PM
Fine...amend the constitution so that it reads...unless you are under 18, a felon, or if you wear a turbin.
RaiderH8r
03-09-2005, 02:23 PM
LOL . thats just aint right ..... But funny
Maybe ,I will agree to a point , I dont want the 2 nd Admendment abolished , just tweaked about certian people buying firearms , for example Felons , People under 18 , Someone in a turbin wearing a tee shirt saying that Americans must die ........... We can start there ;D
Felons can't own guns, and as for the turbin wearing guy...he usually drives my cab. :)
Just let everyone own a gun and get the hell out of my way on a bad day I guess :moody:
Spider
03-09-2005, 02:25 PM
Fine...amend the constitution so that it reads...unless you are under 18, a felon, or if you wear a turbin.
I can live with that , Congress will just tell the ACLU it is a Misprint , and they will take it as soon as we can figure out what they are talking about ..... Thats should buy us 50+ years ;D
Spider
03-09-2005, 02:26 PM
Felons can't own guns, and as for the turbin wearing guy...he usually drives my cab. :)
Exactly , so why cant we make up some bullshiat rule about Enemies of the state ?
Just let everyone own a gun and get the hell out of my way on a bad day I guess :moody:
typical day in LA ;D
Rascal
03-09-2005, 02:26 PM
**** THE ACLU!!! Fascist bastards everyone of em. DEPORT ALL OF THEIR ASSES!!!
but what I do care about is some Jihad asswipe terrorist being able to do the same , Somewhere , there has to be law about foriegners comming here buying weapons , then trying to kill us with these weapons ...... I admit I have a funny stance on this ........ But I dont like it
What is the likelihood that a terrorist who's planning to use a firearm would go to a sporting goods store to buy it?
The whole "terrorists getting firearms" argument is utter bull.
Spider
03-09-2005, 02:34 PM
What is the likelihood that a terrorist who's planning to use a firearm would go to a sporting goods store to buy it?
The whole "terrorists getting firearms" argument is utter bull.
appearently 47 of the 50 on the list ........
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-09-2005, 06:30 PM
it doesn't matter - if guns are illegal - will criminals follow the law? No.
Laws won't stop all the bad guys all the time, but they will slow criminals down and make life more difficult for them.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-09-2005, 06:33 PM
it doesn't matter - if guns are illegal - will criminals follow the law? No.
The proof is in the pudding:
More Than Half a Million Felons, Fugitives and Domestic Abusers Denied Guns. Since the President (Clinton) signed the Brady Bill into law, more than 500,000 felons, fugitives and domestic abusers have been prevented from purchasing guns. And the historic 1994 Crime Bill banned 19 of the deadliest assault weapons and their copies, keeping assault weapons off our streets. The homicide rate dropped 7 percent in 1998 - almost entirely due to a decrease in homicides committed with guns. Since 1993, there has been a more than 35 percent drop in gun-related crime and a 57 percent decrease in juvenile gun homicide offenders.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-09-2005, 06:47 PM
The whole "terrorists getting firearms" argument is utter bull.
Au contraire.
As always, it is, in fact, you who is the purveyor of "bull."
Terror Suspects Legally Buying Guns under Bush
"How many clips will you be needing with your AK47, Mr. Zarqawi?"
http://www.bartcop.com/zarqawi.jpg
"Thank you, Meester Bush..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/national/08terror.html?hp&ex=1110258000&en=8df93e46cb9fdf0e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the US last year. People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap. F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.
__________________________________________________ _________
More Guns, more war, more God, and less education - that's what America voted for in 2004.
Why should terrorists be allowed to buy guns at Wal-Mart?
So Bush can reap millions of dollars as the NRA's puppet?
it doesn't matter - if guns are illegal - will criminals follow the law? No.
The proof is in the pudding:
More Than Half a Million Felons, Fugitives and Domestic Abusers Denied Guns. Since the President (Clinton) signed the Brady Bill into law, more than 500,000 felons, fugitives and domestic abusers have been prevented from purchasing guns. And the historic 1994 Crime Bill banned 19 of the deadliest assault weapons and their copies, keeping assault weapons off our streets. The homicide rate dropped 7 percent in 1998 - almost entirely due to a decrease in homicides committed with guns. Since 1993, there has been a more than 35 percent drop in gun-related crime and a 57 percent decrease in juvenile gun homicide offenders.
Parroting the HCI line, I see.
Of those 500,000, how many have been prosecuted for violating the law?
"Assault weapons" to the anti-gun crowd means "guns some people don't like based on appearance". That ban had nothing to do with functionality or lethality - it was a PR stunt, nothing more.
As for the efficacy of gun control, I'll get my references together and rip the anti-gunner's argument to shreds.
LABF, you just stepped into it.
Au contraire.
As always, it is, in fact, you who is the purveyor of "bull."
What is the likelihood that a terrorist who's planning to use a firearm would go to a sporting goods store to buy it?
Well, LABF?
F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.
Just like that damned ACLU telling the TSA they can't use racial profiling for airline passengers?
Do you think we should all be checked against a "terrorist watch list" for purchasing (say) "The Anarchist's Cookbook"?
Some folks, like LABF, just don't get that by tossing some of our rights into the trashbin (in the ill-conceived belief that we'll be safer) none of our remaining rights are at risk for the same treatment.
I find your protestations of the PATRIOT ACT most unpersuasive, LABF, when you advocate the fascist line on this particular issue.
Laws won't stop all the bad guys all the time, but they will slow criminals down and make life more difficult for them.
A firearm in the hands of someone properly trained in its use and with understanding of the legal aspects of said use does far far more against criminals intent on mayhem than any law.
ClevelandBronco
03-09-2005, 09:27 PM
Suppose a terrorist buys a book on how to build a bomb (they do exist). Does that mean those of us who defend the publication of such materials need to rethink our defense of the 1st Amendment?
Gimme an "R." Gimme an "E." Gimme a "P."
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-09-2005, 10:39 PM
Parroting the HCI line, I see.
Nope.
Just noting the facts (you know - those things you never seem to be able to furnish in support of your assertions?)
As for the efficacy of gun control, I'll get my references together and rip the anti-gunner's argument to shreds. LABF, you just stepped into it.
rofl
Quite the Napoleonic display of chest-thumping, adolescent bravado.
"I'm gonna go round up my friends in the 12th grade, and we're gonna kick your ass!"
What is the likelihood that a terrorist who's planning to use a firearm would go to a sporting goods store to buy it?
What's to stop him?
Hint:
"F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners."
A firearm in the hands of someone properly trained in its use and with understanding of the legal aspects of said use does far far more against criminals intent on mayhem than any law.
LOL
Coming to a theater near you: "Death Wish 4" starring W*GS Bronson.
alkemical
03-10-2005, 04:39 AM
Somthing like that ..see my post about a Turbin and a tee shirt .Call it Racial Profiling , i dont care ......
Define terrorist.
alkemical
03-10-2005, 04:40 AM
Laws won't stop all the bad guys all the time, but they will slow criminals down and make life more difficult for them.
LOL - no it doesn't-
Drugs are illegal - and they are readily available.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-10-2005, 05:26 AM
LOL - no it doesn't-
Drugs are illegal - and they are readily available.
Yes, drugs are readily availible, but just pause for a minute and try to visualize what this country would look like if drugs (especially harder drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroin) were legal (and hence even more readily availible.)
And I'm not sure how far the comparison (drugs and guns) goes where the question of the effectiveness of laws is concerned.
alkemical
03-10-2005, 06:12 AM
Yes, drugs are readily availible, but just pause for a minute and try to visualize what this country would look like if drugs (especially harder drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroin) were legal (and hence even more readily availible.)
And I'm not sure how far the comparison (drugs and guns) goes where the question of the effectiveness of laws is concerned.
laws only punish, they are reactive, not proactive.
Spider
03-10-2005, 06:20 AM
Define terrorist.
one who does terrorist acts or associated with a terorist group .....
I know what you're trying to get at , is the 17 year old Gang banger doing drive by shootings with an AK 47 a terrorist ?
I will leave that up to you to answer , but I think we both can agree , the gang banger shouldnt own a gun ........
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-10-2005, 06:36 AM
laws only punish, they are reactive, not proactive.
Actually, in some instances, drug laws are proactive.
Legal leverage has saved the lives of many drug addicts who were given the option of either rehab or prison time.
Even if you consider yourself to be a person who can control your use, you have to acknowledge that there are a lot of people in society who can't (and who are consequently a danger to themselves and those around them.)
alkemical
03-10-2005, 06:41 AM
one who does terrorist acts or associated with a terorist group .....
I know what you're trying to get at , is the 17 year old Gang banger doing drive by shootings with an AK 47 a terrorist ?
I will leave that up to you to answer , but I think we both can agree , the gang banger shouldnt own a gun ........
I'm not even going with the gangbanger one -
for instance - Under the US Patriot act - declaration of even a us citizen as an 'enemy combatant of the state' will remove any protectionisms that the US constitution would have provided for you. So a terrorist, can be an opposing politically viewed person, at least according to talk radio.
Spider
03-10-2005, 06:45 AM
I'm not even going with the gangbanger one -
for instance - Under the US Patriot act - declaration of even a us citizen as an 'enemy combatant of the state' will remove any protectionisms that the US constitution would have provided for you. So a terrorist, can be an opposing politically viewed person, at least according to talk radio.
Yikes , I never saw that comming ....... thats pretty extreme , would rather have things the way they are now ( terrorist buying Firearms ) then go down that road .........
alkemical
03-10-2005, 06:45 AM
Actually, in some instances, drug laws are proactive.
Legal leverage has saved the lives of many drug addicts who were given the option of either rehab or prison time.
Even if you consider yourself to be a person who can control your use, you have to acknowledge that there are a lot of people in society who can't (and who are consequently a danger to themselves and those around them.)
Lets get back on topic -
Laws don't really restrict an illegal action. For instance, if i want a gun, i can buy one illegally. There are laws in place to stop it, but it won't be stopped. Just as in the drug market, it won't ever end. Laws restrict sale, use, etc - but don't do anything to look at the root cause, and apply a solution to it.
alkemical
03-10-2005, 06:46 AM
Yikes , I never saw that comming ....... thats pretty extreme , would rather have things the way they are now ( terrorist buying Firearms ) then go down that road .........
I view things like labling terrorists - sort of dangerous - one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.
Spider
03-10-2005, 06:48 AM
I view things like labling terrorists - sort of dangerous - one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.
yep , it is a very complex issue , the well runs deep ..........
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-10-2005, 07:06 AM
Laws restrict sale, use, etc - but don't do anything to look at the root cause, and apply a solution to it.
I'll grant you that; laws are imperfect, but until someone finds an effective way to treat the "root cause," they're all we've got.
alkemical
03-10-2005, 07:09 AM
yep , it is a very complex issue , the well runs deep ..........
according to the FBI, defenders of the constitution are threats.....
alkemical
03-10-2005, 07:10 AM
I'll grant you that; laws are imperfect, but until someone finds an effective way to treat the "root cause," they're all we've got.
But if restricting firearmes & drug sales with laws, it only makes legally obtaining them more difficult, not illegally obtaining them....
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-10-2005, 07:21 AM
But if restricting firearmes & drug sales with laws, it only makes legally obtaining them more difficult, not illegally obtaining them....
I, for one, am willing to put up with the 'difficulty' involved in legally obtaining a firearm if it helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
Rascal
03-10-2005, 07:25 AM
How many guns do you own LABF?
If the current laws would be enforced this wouldn't be a problem. making more laws is only going to hurt those that use them legally. If a terroists, gang banger, or whatever wants a gun he isn't going to go to Walmart to buy it if the laws are enforced.
Having stated that...I think a 48 hour wait for background check should be required.
alkemical
03-10-2005, 07:29 AM
I, for one, am willing to put up with the 'difficulty' involved in legally obtaining a firearm if it helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The black market will never, ever, ever go away - too much money to be made
Spider
03-10-2005, 07:31 AM
How many guns do you own LABF?
If the current laws would be enforced this wouldn't be a problem. making more laws is only going to hurt those that use them legally. If a terroists, gang banger, or whatever wants a gun he isn't going to go to Walmart to buy it if the laws are enforced.
I agree , but using that platform , why have the Patriot act ? Before 9-11 it was illegal to hijack a plane and fly into a building ?
it isnt so much on adding new laws, but tying all the laws into a platform , where they can be enforced , thats what the patriot act is supposed to do ...
Having stated that...I think a 48 hour wait for background check should be required.
For hand guns and assualt Rifles ...... For Shot guns , I dont think there should be a waiting Period ..... a Shotgun can be devestatin @ close Range , but they are so lmited in ammuntion they can hold .......
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-10-2005, 07:32 AM
How many guns do you own LABF?
Two.
A Smith and Wesson model 15 .38 combat masterpiece (military issue) and an AR-15 (sans automatic sear.)
alkemical
03-10-2005, 07:33 AM
I agree , but using that platform , why have the Patriot act ? Before 9-11 it was illegal to hijack a plane and fly into a building ?
it isnt so much on adding new laws, but tying all the laws into a platform , where they can be enforced , thats what the patriot act is supposed to do ...
For hand guns and assualt Rifles ...... For Shot guns , I dont think there should be a waiting Period ..... a Shotgun can be devestatin @ close Range , but they are so lmited in ammuntion they can hold .......
but a derringer is limited in ammo and only real successful at close range...
Spider
03-10-2005, 07:37 AM
but a derringer is limited in ammo and only real successful at close range...
But a derringer is easly concealed ...........
Rascal
03-10-2005, 07:38 AM
I agree , but using that platform , why have the Patriot act ? Before 9-11 it was illegal to hijack a plane and fly into a building ?
it isnt so much on adding new laws, but tying all the laws into a platform , where they can be enforced , thats what the patriot act is supposed to do ...
For hand guns and assualt Rifles ...... For Shot guns , I dont think there should be a waiting Period ..... a Shotgun can be devestatin @ close Range , but they are so lmited in ammuntion they can hold .......
Yes there should be a wait for hand guns and assault rifles...especially assault rifles. Shot guns as you said there is no need for one.
Fine...tie the laws into a new platform I don't care. My point is adding news laws isn't going to solve the problem.
If the laws were enforced and a 48 hour wait for guns and maybe even a 72 hour wait for assault rifles was implemented this problem would be dramatically reduced. Now that prevents your gang banger and terroists going to walmart go get their handgun, but it still doesn't do anything about them going to black markets and so forth where they sell guns you don't want to know about (i went to one before and some of that stuff is downright scary).
I think our attention should be diverted from adding new laws to enforcement of the current laws and protecting the borders.
Spider
03-10-2005, 07:41 AM
Yes there should be a wait for hand guns and assault rifles...especially assault rifles. Shot guns as you said there is no need for one.
We are in agreement ;D
Fine...tie the laws into a new platform I don't care. My point is adding news laws isn't going to solve the problem.
Point well taken ......
If the laws were enforced and a 48 hour wait for guns and maybe even a 72 hour wait for assault rifles was implemented this problem would be dramatically reduced. Now that prevents your gang banger and terroists going to walmart go get their handgun, but it still doesn't do anything about them going to black markets and so forth where they sell guns you don't want to know about (i went to one before and some of that stuff is downright scary).
agreed .
I think our attention should be diverted from adding new laws to enforcement of the current laws and protecting the borders.
Agreed ....... See that wasnt so hard ;D
Rascal
03-10-2005, 07:46 AM
So to answer your first question...no you are not wrong in your defense of the 2nd amendment. Just wrong in your support of democrats ;)
Spider
03-10-2005, 07:59 AM
So to answer your first question...no you are not wrong in your defense of the 2nd amendment. Just wrong in your support of democrats ;)
;D . I would rather support the good guys .......
TheDave
03-10-2005, 09:12 AM
What is this world comming to... Spider and Rascal in complete agreement... Oh $hit what next dogs and cats living in harmony... Maybe Robs right, the end is near... Guess it's time i go find one of Errands post and agree with it...
Spider
03-10-2005, 09:13 AM
What is this world comming to... Spider and Rascal in complete agreement... Oh $hit what next dogs and cats living in harmony... Maybe Robs right, the end is near... Guess it's time i go find one of Errands post and agree with it...
LOL ...... you and Errand agreeing ....... ;D
Rascal
03-10-2005, 09:13 AM
Convert now!!
TheDave
03-10-2005, 09:15 AM
F**k It... I just did a quick review of his posts.... thers no way hell could be that bad
Spider
03-10-2005, 09:22 AM
F**k It... I just did a quick review of his posts.... thers no way hell could be that bad
LOL ....... I didnt think so
football idiot
03-10-2005, 09:57 AM
this whole thing is a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy:
on the one hand, we've got the ACLU complaining about the 5,000 locked up terrorists that aren't being treated 'fairly' or given their 'rights'.
on the other hand, we have the tabloid media blowing up this watch-list story to make the gun-biz look bad, but if DC did something about it, the ACLU would be right there about unfair treatment of innocent people.
cuz that's what people on the watch-list are. innocent until proven guilty. that's how it works in THIS country. we think they might be involved in some form of terrorist activity. if we knew they were terrorists, they wouldn't be walking the streets and buying guns. besides, we don't want these people to know they're on the watch list, because it's alot easier to catch them when they don't know they're being watched.
but hey, get all fired up over a stupid newspaper article. it's your right as an American.
Spider
03-10-2005, 10:29 AM
this whole thing is a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy:
on the one hand, we've got the ACLU complaining about the 5,000 locked up terrorists that aren't being treated 'fairly' or given their 'rights'.
There is a Huge difference in being a suspect , and being detained and tortured .........
on the other hand, we have the tabloid media blowing up this watch-list story to make the gun-biz look bad, but if DC did something about it, the ACLU would be right there about unfair treatment of innocent people.
I see you are good at making assumptions , here is one for you How do you get on the list in the first place ?
cuz that's what people on the watch-list are. innocent until proven guilty. that's how it works in THIS country. appearently you live in a polly anna world , or never been outside and had interactions with the Police , not to mention your lack of out cry over Gitmo ........ and you talk of Liberal hypocrisy ..... Pt this is hte kettle . you're black .......
we think they might be involved in some form of terrorist activity. if we knew they were terrorists, they wouldn't be walking the streets and buying guns. besides, we don't want these people to know they're on the watch list, because it's alot easier to catch them when they don't know they're being watched.
Realy you dont say Kojack ...... But we dont allow a suspected Felon to go buy firearms ... funny how the system works that way ......
but hey, get all fired up over a stupid newspaper article. it's your right as an American.
??? ???
Just like it is your right to mahe assinine broad statements and assumptions without facts ...... I guess that makes us even then
Yes there should be a wait for hand guns and assault rifles...especially assault rifles. Shot guns as you said there is no need for one.
Why waiting periods? And what's an "assault rifle"?
If the laws were enforced and a 48 hour wait for guns and maybe even a 72 hour wait for assault rifles was implemented this problem would be dramatically reduced.
A right delayed is a right denied. How about a 48-72 hour waiting period for newspapers so the government can check to make sure they got the facts right?
Just noting the facts (you know - those things you never seem to be able to furnish in support of your assertions?)
How many of this alleged 500,000 were prosecuted, and, how many were "false positives"?
What's to stop him?
Why bother going to a legitimate outlet when he can readily get the same or better cheaper and without any hassle of any kind?
I'm not terribly impressed by the arguments of LEOs in regards to restrictions of their powers imposed by our civil liberties. There's a reason a "police state" is a bad thing.
Coming to a theater near you: "Death Wish 4" starring W*GS Bronson.
I know it fulfills the anti-gunner's dreams to believe that those of us who support and protect the RKBA are nothing more than a bunch of trigger-happy vigilantes, but it just ain't so.
I'd like to see gun safety taught in schools right along with sex education, and on successful completion of the material and high school graduation, the student is automatically granted a concealed-carry permit.
We'll work on getting rid of the whole CCW permit system sooner rather than later.
Rascal
03-12-2005, 02:02 PM
Why waiting periods? And what's an "assault rifle"?
A right delayed is a right denied. How about a 48-72 hour waiting period for newspapers so the government can check to make sure they got the facts right?
Why waiting periods, because that way a COMPLETE background check can be done on somebody trying to purchase a gun. Granted terroists and gang bangers aren't likely to go through the proper channels, but I would hate for that to be a possibility. Make it as hard as possible for them.
What's an assault rifle? Your are the NRA you tell me smartass.
newspapers in the wrong hands aren't as likely to blow your freaking head off then an assault rifle. Common sense being applied here would be a good thing.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-12-2005, 04:50 PM
Why waiting periods, because that way a COMPLETE background check can be done on somebody trying to purchase a gun. Granted terroists and gang bangers aren't likely to go through the proper channels, but I would hate for that to be a possibility. Make it as hard as possible for them.
Damn!
Mark your calendars - I actually agree with the guy who keeps trying to vote me off the island on something.
Spider
03-12-2005, 05:32 PM
Your are the NRA you tell me smartass.
Classic ........ Rep!!!!
Why waiting periods, because that way a COMPLETE background check can be done on somebody trying to purchase a gun.
Why? Why not someone buying a knife? Gasoline? Rope? "The Anarchist's Cookbook"?
What do you do when (not "if") the purchase is denied due to error? How do you get around having to seek permission to enact an inalienable right?
Why should we turn one of the essential philosophical and legal foundations of our society, innocent until proven guilty, on its head, and assume guilt and demand proof of innocence?
What's an assault rifle? Your are the NRA you tell me smartass.
In short, you don't know - all you know is that "assault rifle" is scary-sounding, and the media uses it all the time to describe "bad" guns, so, someone buying an "assault rifle" must be about to do something heinous, eh?
BTW, buying a genuine "assault rifle" is already very highly regulated. Do you know what those regulations are?
newspapers in the wrong hands aren't as likely to blow your freaking head off then an assault rifle.
Ever hear "The pen is mightier than the sword"?
Guns in and of themselves are no more dangerous than a knife, or a rope, or a lighter. Do you think they are?
Common sense being applied here would be a good thing.
Indeed. Guns are not evil - some people are. Go after the people, not the guns.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
03-13-2005, 03:58 AM
Classic ........ Rep!!!!
Indeed.
How nutty is a guy whose tagline reads "I am the NRA," anyway?
(As opposed to "Proud member of the NRA," or "Member since 1992," or something of that nature?)
How nutty is a guy whose tagline reads "I am the NRA," anyway?
You haven't see their ads, then. And it's
"I'm the NRA", with pictures of people of various ages, ethnicities, men and women, young and old. Just like the organization is.
I could suggest a tagline for you, but I'll be polite and not repeat them here.
Spider
03-13-2005, 07:46 AM
Why? Why not someone buying a knife? Gasoline? Rope? "The Anarchist's Cookbook"?
Lets see you want to classify dual use Items , as a weapon ...... a Knife can be used as a weapon , no question , but it can also be used to spread butter , can a gun?
Gasoline = another dual use , Gas is used for transportation , cutting grass, Generators for electricity , and can be used as an Explosive agent ..... Can a gun do all those things W*GS ?
Rope = another Item of many uses , from binding , even in the old days Rope was used as a type of measuring device , from county roads , to how deep the Mississippi was , we use Ropes , to pull, lift , Hold somthing in Place like a boat for example , can a gun do all that W*GS ? The Antichrist cookbook = Reading , Paper wieght , Part of a Personal Library also used to gain Knowledge to buid destructive devices ...... Can a gun do all that ?
What do you do when (not "if") the purchase is denied due to error? How do you get around having to seek permission to enact an inalienable right? Thats easy file a claim in the courts , Thats what they are there for .....
Why should we turn one of the essential philosophical and legal foundations of our society, innocent until proven guilty, on its head, and assume guilt and demand proof of innocence?
this part makes no sense , Innocent untill Proven Guilty ? you telling me that People without Felonies are not getting Firearms when they try to buy them ?
In short, you don't know - all you know is that "assault rifle" is scary-sounding, and the media uses it all the time to describe "bad" guns, so, someone buying an "assault rifle" must be about to do something heinous, eh?
Well if the reasons are legit ( wich I am sure they are ) then they shouldnt mind waiting , whats a few days ?
BTW, buying a genuine "assault rifle" is already very highly regulated. Do you know what those regulations are?
1. Is Caliber restrictions
2.Length of weapon
3. the ammuntion clips and firing rates ...
Somewhere someone decided that it is better to be shot multiple times with a small caliber firearm , then hit one with a large caliber firearm .....
Guns in and of themselves are no more dangerous than a knife, or a rope, or a lighter. and I as I pointed out , nowhere as usefull either
Indeed. Guns are not evil - some people are. Go after the people, not the guns.
What happened to your Big speech on Innocent untill Proven guilty ?
a Gun itself isnt evil , but some strung out Crack addic with one is , but if you had your way Wags , the Crack addic could walk into Wal Mart , buy a gun , no questions asked .... I shouldnt have to tell you how stupid that is .....
Lets see you want to classify dual use Items
The point is that a person buying a gun isn't always going to commit murder any more than someone buying gasoline, a knife, rope, whatever, is going to commit murder.
Thats easy file a claim in the courts , Thats what they are there for .....
Guilty until proven innocent, in short.
Let's toss you in prison on false charges for a number of years - there's always the courts in which you can see recourse, right?
this part makes no sense , Innocent untill Proven Guilty ? you telling me that People without Felonies are not getting Firearms when they try to buy them ?
Of course there are people who have been erroneously denied a purchase of a firearm.
The whole concept of a background check is odious, in that it requires the purchaser to prove that she's not disallowed from buying a firearm.
Would you accept the same restrictions on your 1st Amendment rights as you do on your 2nd Amendment rights?
Well if the reasons are legit ( wich I am sure they are ) then they shouldnt mind waiting , whats a few days ?
A right delayed is a right denied.
You're "sure" the reasons for restricting a person's RKBA are "legit"? Really? You trust the government that much? I don't.
1. Is Caliber restrictions
2.Length of weapon
3. the ammuntion clips and firing rates ...
Not quite. Try again.
What happened to your Big speech on Innocent untill Proven guilty ? a Gun itself isnt evil , but some strung out Crack addic with one is , but if you had your way Wags , the Crack addic could walk into Wal Mart , buy a gun , no questions asked .... I shouldnt have to tell you how stupid that is .....
Wal-Mart would be fully within its rights to deny service to someone who walked in, strung out on crack, who tried to buy a gun. But the likelihood of that is so vanishingly small that it's ridiculous to impose onerous rules and restrictions on everyone else all the time to possibly avoid such a scenario. You need to show that such things occur so often that it's not completely unreasonable for waiting periods and background checks to be legislated. Hint: You can't.
Spider
03-13-2005, 02:57 PM
The point is that a person buying a gun isn't always going to commit murder any more than someone buying gasoline, a knife, rope, whatever, is going to commit murder.
Didnt say they was , all I pointed out was you used dual or multiple use items , to compare to a gun . a comparision that fails for the reasons I pointed out ........ so there for your point was rendered mute , there is no way you can compare Multifaceted items , to a single use Item ......
Guilty until proven innocent, in short.
Still doesnt tie into the argument you are making . or I fail to pick up on it .
Let's toss you in prison on false charges for a number of years - there's always the courts in which you can see recourse, right?
..... Thats it ..... Surely you wouldnt suggest I pick up a gun and pull a david Koresh or a Randy Weaver ......
Of course there are people who have been erroneously denied a purchase of a firearm.
Care to provide the proof of this claim ?
The whole concept of a background check is odious, in that it requires the purchaser to prove that she's not disallowed from buying a firearm.
I have bought firearms , under the waiting Period , didnt bother me a bit , so you may want to change your statement to I find the whole waiting Period and Background checks Odious .... After all you are offering an opinion .....
Would you accept the same restrictions on your 1st Amendment rights as you do on your 2nd Amendment rights?
We have restrictions on the 1 St admendment , you cant shout Bomb in a crowded Place ..... or cant incite a Riot , several things you cant do .... Including picking up a copy of Mad magazine and robbing a store ......
A right delayed is a right denied.
Bull§hit ...... A right delayed is a right denied ? good grief .. Learn some patience
You're "sure" the reasons for restricting a person's RKBA are "legit"? Really? You trust the government that much? I don't.
I know some people personaly that believe like you do , they are held up in their house in camaflauge , afraid to go outside ....... Scary realy .... They are also called Minute men here ......
Not quite. Try again.
Close enough
Wal-Mart would be fully within its rights to deny service to someone who walked in, strung out on crack, who tried to buy a gun.
all I can say is wow , first you tell me a right delayed is a right denied , now you are telling me you are ok with a Wal Mart Employee deciding who can or cant buy firearms ..... you are more mixed up the a feather in a whirlwind ......
But the likelihood of that is so vanishingly small that it's ridiculous to impose onerous rules and restrictions on everyone else all the time to possibly avoid such a scenario. You need to show that such things occur so often that it's not completely unreasonable for waiting periods and background checks to be legislated. Hint: You can't.
Happens more then you think , maybe not Crack there W*GS , but Drunks , coke addics , Cleptomaniacs , Terrorist , the list goes on and on of People who try to buy a gun the legit way ............. and judging from part of your Paragraph , you are ok with a Sales Clerk deciding who can or cant get firearms ......
Didnt say they was , all I pointed out was you used dual or multiple use items , to compare to a gun . a comparision that fails for the reasons I pointed out ........ so there for your point was rendered mute , there is no way you can compare Multifaceted items , to a single use Item ......
What's the "single use" of a gun?
Still doesnt tie into the argument you are making . or I fail to pick up on it .
I'll do it slowly this time. No-one is allowed to purchase a firearm (legitimately, of course) unless the background check comes back clear. What that means is that everyone's RKBA is denied until permission is given by the State. That is exactly backwards. It's no different than everyone being put in prison until everyone gets a trial in which they attempt to prove that they are innocent.
That's not how our system is supposed to work.
Care to provide the proof of this claim ?
The Inherent Flaws with NICS
A General Accounting Office report, "Gun Control: Implementation of NICS," was issued on February 29, 2000. It documents many NICS failures. With a congressional allocation of more than $300 million since 1995:
Through September 1999, NICS had 360 unscheduled outages amounting to more than 215 hours of downtime, during which firearms retailers may have suffered millions of dollars in lost sales.
The system failed to provide instant checks 28 percent of the time, delaying sales for 1.2 million legal purchasers from hours to days.
Of the 81,000 sales denied by the FBI under NICS, nearly 14,000 people appealed, claiming that they were wrongly denied; of cases adjudicated at the time the report was issued, 2,710 denials had been overturned.
3,353 felons and others prohibited by law from purchasing firearms were allowed to buy guns over the counter after being mistakenly approved by NICS; but only 3.3 percent of these prohibited individuals were being investigated by the federal government for violating federal firearms laws by purchasing guns.
I have bought firearms , under the waiting Period , didnt bother me a bit , so you may want to change your statement to I find the whole waiting Period and Background checks Odious .... After all you are offering an opinion .....
Feel free to deny yourself your RKBA - I can't stop you. But don't you dare try to restrict mine.
We have restrictions on the 1 St admendment , you cant shout Bomb in a crowded Place ..... or cant incite a Riot , several things you cant do ....
In none of those instances, however, is there prior restraint - no-one demands that you submit what you are about to say for a "background check" to make sure you don't incite a riot or cause a dangerous stampede. Do you think a restriction of that sort should be in place?
Bull§hit ...... A right delayed is a right denied ? good grief .. Learn some patience
No. My rights are my rights, and it's not anyone's place to tell me that I have to wait to enact them.
I know some people personaly that believe like you do , they are held up in their house in camaflauge , afraid to go outside ....... Scary realy .... They are also called Minute men here ......
Your smear doesn't change the essence of the argument. How much do you trust the government?
all I can say is wow , first you tell me a right delayed is a right denied , now you are telling me you are ok with a Wal Mart Employee deciding who can or cant buy firearms ..... you are more mixed up the a feather in a whirlwind ......
You posited the scenario of a "strung out" crack addict in Wal-Mart buying a gun. Wal-Mart can obviously deny that individual any service or purchase, just like they can anyone else. There's a big difference between a government official telling you "no" and a private individual or a corporation telling you "no".
Happens more then you think , maybe not Crack there W*GS , but Drunks , coke addics , Cleptomaniacs , Terrorist , the list goes on and on of People who try to buy a gun the legit way
Please tell us how many firearms purchasers should be forbidden from buying a firearm - a rough percentage will do.
And how many "Terrorist [sic]" attempt to buy firearms legitimately?
Spider
03-14-2005, 03:41 PM
What's the "single use" of a gun?
Discharge ammunition ...... not that hard to figure out ......
I'll do it slowly this time. No-one is allowed to purchase a firearm (legitimately, of course) unless the background check comes back clear. What that means is that everyone's RKBA is denied until permission is given by the State. That is exactly backwards. It's no different than everyone being put in prison until everyone gets a trial in which they attempt to prove that they are innocent.
LOL .... you can go as slow as you want , still doesnt mean waiting a few days means your rights are taken away ....... your argument is weak .....
That's not how our system is supposed to work.
Oh ..... Our system huh .... I think it works ok , needs to be tightened up
The Inherent Flaws with NICS
A General Accounting Office report, "Gun Control: Implementation of NICS," was issued on February 29, 2000. It documents many NICS failures. With a congressional allocation of more than $300 million since 1995:
Through September 1999, NICS had 360 unscheduled outages amounting to more than 215 hours of downtime, during which firearms retailers may have suffered millions of dollars in lost sales.
The system failed to provide instant checks 28 percent of the time, delaying sales for 1.2 million legal purchasers from hours to days.
Of the 81,000 sales denied by the FBI under NICS, nearly 14,000 people appealed, claiming that they were wrongly denied; of cases adjudicated at the time the report was issued, 2,710 denials had been overturned.
3,353 felons and others prohibited by law from purchasing firearms were allowed to buy guns over the counter after being mistakenly approved by NICS; but only 3.3 percent of these prohibited individuals were being investigated by the federal government for violating federal firearms laws by purchasing guns.
Delays ? If people cant wait , then they dont have the Patience to own a gun .....
Feel free to deny yourself your RKBA - I can't stop you. But don't you dare try to restrict mine.
Grow up already , Kind of remind me of my 4 year old when I tell him he has to wait for desert untill after dinner ..... Whaaaa I want it now .....
In none of those instances, however, is there prior restraint - no-one demands that you submit what you are about to say for a "background check" to make sure you don't incite a riot or cause a dangerous stampede. Do you think a restriction of that sort should be in place?
Well on the outside of having severe case of Halitosis , words wont do the damage a gun does .... and in some cases , yes some have to submit what they will or wont say while on a public platform ........
No. My rights are my rights, and it's not anyone's place to tell me that I have to wait to enact them.
Kicking and stomping his feet shouting it is unfair for me to wait ....... W*GS , news flash son , Life isnt fair .......
Your smear doesn't change the essence of the argument. How much do you trust the government? Hellva lot more then wal Mart Employee .......
You posited the scenario of a "strung out" crack addict in Wal-Mart buying a gun. Wal-Mart can obviously deny that individual any service or purchase, just like they can anyone else. There's a big difference between a government official telling you "no" and a private individual or a corporation telling you "no". and who decides who is strung out on Crack ?
Please tell us how many firearms purchasers should be forbidden from buying a firearm - a rough percentage will do.
Just those that dont pass a back ground check ....... See unlike you , I understand there are People who shouldnt own Guns , while you want everyone to be able to buy a gun , I on the other hand dont think Felons should have them ...
And how many "Terrorist [sic]" attempt to buy firearms legitimately?
From what the TV said 47 out of 50 on the list .........
Discharge ammunition ...... not that hard to figure out ......
At least you didn't say "Kill people", which is the typical response.
LOL .... you can go as slow as you want , still doesnt mean waiting a few days means your rights are taken away
Suppose the purchaser's life has been credibly threatened? You know, the "vengeful abusive stalking ex-husband" scenario. Do you tell her a few days' wait won't hurt, or, do you want her to be able to protect herself?
Grow up already , Kind of remind me of my 4 year old when I tell him he has to wait for desert untill after dinner ..... Whaaaa I want it now .....
Your rights are no more important to you than a child's desire for dessert? If that's how you feel, then yes, they will be taken away from you.
W*GS , news flash son , Life isnt fair .......
Isn't that the standard right-winger's retort?
and who decides who is strung out on Crack ?
You tell me - you presented the scenario.
Just those that dont pass a back ground check ....... See unlike you , I understand there are People who shouldnt own Guns , while you want everyone to be able to buy a gun , I on the other hand dont think Felons should have them ...
So why restrict the rights of everyone else to catch the few felons stupid enough to go to a legitimate firearms dealer? Would you be willing to submit to a full body cavity search before going into a movie theater, just in case some terrorist decides to suicide-bomb the place? If it saves one life...
From what the TV said 47 out of 50 on the list .........
"Suspected" terrorists. If they've been proven to be terrorists, then why aren't they in custody? If they're still suspected, then why aren't they under 24x7 surveillance? Why rely on a faulty background check system at all?
The whole "terrorists are buying guns so we better restrict the RKBA even more" argument is just a red herring.
You see, background checks and waiting periods are quite a ways down the slope of prior restraint, and that's a very dangerous place to be. If you accept a 3-day waiting period, then why not 7 days? Two weeks? A month? Never?
Spider
03-14-2005, 05:32 PM
At least you didn't say "Kill people", which is the typical response.
Thats not a guns intended Purpose ......
Suppose the purchaser's life has been credibly threatened? You know, the "vengeful abusive stalking ex-husband" scenario. Do you tell her a few days' wait won't hurt, or, do you want her to be able to protect herself?
My life has been threatened , and a Gun isnt much good unless you know how to use it , I would suggest the fine art of Self defense ....
Your rights are no more important to you than a child's desire for dessert? If that's how you feel, then yes, they will be taken away from you.
as I said , I still have my rights , waiting 72 hours doesnt bother me a bit .....
Isn't that the standard right-winger's retort?
I think that is a standard responce for everyone .....
You tell me - you presented the scenario.
Thats my point , I cant , and I doubt Wal Mart Employee can either ........
So why restrict the rights of everyone else to catch the few felons stupid enough to go to a legitimate firearms dealer? Would you be willing to submit to a full body cavity search before going into a movie theater, just in case some terrorist decides to suicide-bomb the place? If it saves one life...
Who rights are being Restricted ? I dont see your side on that .....
"Suspected" terrorists. If they've been proven to be terrorists, then why aren't they in custody? If they're still suspected, then why aren't they under 24x7 surveillance? Why rely on a faulty background check system at all?
Take it up with Homeland security ......
The whole "terrorists are buying guns so we better restrict the RKBA even more" argument is just a red herring.
Hilarious! LOL , your entire Argument has been a Red Herring , sorry if I dont feel the Pain that you endure when asked to Claear a background check before a gun .....
You see, background checks and waiting periods are quite a ways down the slope of prior restraint, you get plenty of exercise reaching ..... a Delay in in time lost waiting ot get a gun by no means is the slippery slope you claim .....
and that's a very dangerous place to be. If you accept a 3-day waiting period, then why not 7 days? Two weeks? A month? Never?
Take as long as Needed to clear , see you want to throw all this drama in , 7 Days , Month , year whatever , all it is 72 hours 3 days , a mere blip ...... Please save the longer wait Drama for someone else ......
as I said , I still have my rights , waiting 72 hours doesnt bother me a bit .....
It should.
Spider
03-15-2005, 09:27 AM
It should.
Why ? I still get the gun ..... I only have to wait 3 days ...... why should that bother me . Hell I wish my Mechanic was that damn fast ........
Why ? I still get the gun ..... I only have to wait 3 days ...... why should that bother me . Hell I wish my Mechanic was that damn fast ........
Because you've conceded that your RKBA is now a matter of permission and a privilege, enacted at the discretion of the government.
Would you wait 3 days to enact your 1st Amendment rights while the government did a background check? Would you allow the government to force a newspaper to wait three days to publish a story?
Spider
03-15-2005, 09:42 AM
Because you've conceded that your RKBA is now a matter of permission and a privilege, enacted at the discretion of the government.
Permission ? maybe , But they Must have a damn good reason to deny my right .. but then on the other hand I am willing to wait to help keep guns out of the hands of those who have lost that right .......
Would you wait 3 days to enact your 1st Amendment rights while the government did a background check?
Depends , on where I am speaking and on what matter .....
Would you allow the government to force a newspaper to wait three days to publish a story?
Depends on what is in the artical , for example , Secerets that good be damming to the USA , or an undercover agent in a drug bust .... I would be all for vetting if these articals put the country or an agent to risk ..... What I find amusing is , you keep comparing apples to oranges , comparing the free speech to owning a gun ...... That shows your argument is weak when it wont stand on its own ........
Spider
03-15-2005, 09:48 AM
you know W*GS , I support concealed Gun permits , in the right hands , I am a firm believer , that if you are not a convicted Felon . or have a history of Petty robbery , you should be able to carry a concealed weapon , besides , street thugs would thing twice about " pouncing on their prey" .........in the right hands I mean , to carry a concealed weapon , you have to have some training in handling the Gun , a gun in persons hands that doesnt know what they are doing , is dangerous , not to mention another gun on the street in a kids hands ......
Rascal
03-16-2005, 06:55 AM
Looks like I missed a good argument.
I'm not going to bother reading all of this.
My stance is this...if you trully want the gun having to wait 72 hours to ensure that you are not a former convict, or whatever, won't be enough to detour you. I would rather give up those 72 hours then have the possibility that someone illegally should obtain it.
BTW...I have a concealled gun permit and I think that cities (San Fran for example) outlawing people's rights to own a gun is ludicrous and unconstitutional.
Oh...here is the definition of a semiautomatic assault rifle for those that are curious:
Per Section 921 (a) (30) (B) , of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), the term “semiautomatic assault weapon” means a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher.
A semiautomatic SKS rifle with a detachable magazine and 2 or more of the above qualifying features (i) -(v) is a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined. Please note that a thumbhole type stock or a bullpup style stock may still incorporate a pistol grip.
Personally, I think an assault rifle should also be classified in its rate of fire and impact velocity...ie automatic/semi-automatic rifles.
If you want your M-16 or AK47 fine, but expect to wait 72 hours to ensure that you are in fact who you are and are allowed, yes allowed, to have such a weapon.
My stance is this...if you trully want the gun having to wait 72 hours to ensure that you are not a former convict, or whatever, won't be enough to detour you. I would rather give up those 72 hours then have the possibility that someone illegally should obtain it.
Why do you accept turning your RKBA from a right to a privilege?