Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[cale]

I dont quite get what you asking here or what you point is about chemical weapons and Geneva. If you read the linked post, and digested the information provided you have all the answers to this already. Read it again and if you are having trouble understanding ask about that 1st.


If you live in a free state that doesn't regulate past the Federal NFA rules you have a full functioning and armed Antiaircraft battery on your roof, a antitank recoil-less rifle, grandees ect... If you have the cash (shits really expensive like you can buy nice homes for what some if it costs) but you can have it an use it.

The point that I made in the post you claim to have read, points out we have a RIGHT to anything that a general infantry many is going to have access too, hand guns, rifles, shot guns, and other small arms, In 1934 thanks the to prohibition gangsters shooting it out with better arms than the Gmen had so we ended up with NFA.

Now there have been I think 2 crimes ever committed with a legally held NFA/title 2 weapon. One was a NJ cop that went nuts and used a Department owned weapon to kill his wife IIRC.

My question was what in the Constitution states what weapons you can or cannot have? And if not explicitly defined and categorized, then I'm claiming interpretation of the Amendment is necessary to come to the conclusions you and many others have. Hence many courts coming to different conclusions as to what "bear arms" defines and what arms are protected under this amendment. And since what is available to the infantry is ever changing, primarily as a result of what can be made to be carried feasibly, the limitations are extremely broad and do in fact include weaponized chemicals or any other devastating weapons as such weapons ARE deployable by infantry if a need ever arose. Furthermore, that because of this indistinction one could interpret the banning of any form of armament is a breach of your 2a right.

Please don't just say I'm wacko, tell me where I'm wrong.

[mrsleeve]

Studies have shown that it is actually counterproductive to ban/restrict guns to decrease murder:
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

this has been a known and debated and hammered on fact for 300 years, Yet largely forgotten

[VinniE30]

Studies have shown that it is actually counterproductive to ban/restrict guns to decrease murder:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

[mrsleeve]

I've read the Bill of Rights as well as that post, so I have some questions for you. Where do you conclude that bearing arms includes the types of weapons you claim a right to? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm looking for you to provide something showing you specifically have that right.



So you claim interpretation is not necessary as it's clear as day, but implication is? So which is it, is it clear or is it not?

Reasonable or not, you're assuming it was written with the intention of modernizing weapons as soon as they became available. Well I've got news for you, the weapons you're so desperate to keep are old news. Why are hand guns (old technology) acceptable but weaponized chemicals are not? Is the signing of the Geneva Convention not an infringement upon your right to bear arms as it takes that ability away from you, arms which are not specifically defined? The same argument can be made for a multitude of varying forms of weaponry, what other than interpretation has allowed you to keep your firearms but not other forms of armament.

I dont quite get what you asking here or what you point is about chemical weapons and Geneva. If you read the linked post, and digested the information provided you have all the answers to this already. Read it again and if you are having trouble understanding ask about that 1st.


If you live in a free state that doesn't regulate past the Federal NFA rules you have a full functioning and armed Antiaircraft battery on your roof, a antitank recoil-less rifle, grandees ect... If you have the cash (shits really expensive like you can buy nice homes for what some if it costs) but you can have it an use it.

The point that I made in the post you claim to have read, points out we have a RIGHT to anything that a general infantry many is going to have access too, hand guns, rifles, shot guns, and other small arms, In 1934 thanks the to prohibition gangsters shooting it out with better arms than the Gmen had so we ended up with NFA.

Now there have been I think 2 crimes ever committed with a legally held NFA/title 2 weapon. One was a NJ cop that went nuts and used a Department owned weapon to kill his wife IIRC.

[joshh]

.....and they are required to have proof of securing their personal firearms in their residence. How to do that, I don't know.

[iamsam]

To the people that are clearly anti-guns:
State exactly what your position is and what you want the law to be.
This has gotten to the point now where the pro-rights people have completely defended their position and every anti-gun argument.

also, I agree, like a posted a few pages back, let's actually have a reasonable argument where both sides present what they believe should actually be done, realistically.

I already presented mine, although somewhat buried:

Nation-wide CWP availability, i.e. same laws for every state, in a nutshell: Any citizen can get a CWP if they pass the background/sanity checks and pass a training course, regardless of where in the US they live.

[joshh]

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

April 13, 2009

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.* In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. *In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy.* Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

[iamsam]

Thats with the thinking that the shooter could switch a mag in 10 seconds.
There could be an opening for someone in those 10 seconds, or he could have packed the new mag wrong.

All joking aside, that is true. An attacker with larger magazines is more formidable than an attacker with smaller magazines, but with the same number of total bullets.

HOWEVER, I still would like to impress that banning large magazines will do NEARLY NOTHING to slow down gun crime. Two main reasons: one, too many large magazines already exist under private ownership, and therefore are accessible. Two, the diminished effectiveness of a small magazine-equipped shooter is so small that it cannot be considered to anyone as a significant improvement, for example, pretend there is an "average death toll per public massacre", that number would go down from, say, 15 to 13 or something. Not a huge win.

[cale]

Quote:
Originally Posted by InuFaye
Whats the reason why you should have them? Don't give me the "ITS AMERICUH, I'M ENTITLED"

All your giving me is excuses why it wouldn't stop the shootings.
Please read the second amendment

then read this

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...17&postcount=9

then get back to me

I've read the Bill of Rights as well as that post, so I have some questions for you. Where do you conclude that bearing arms includes the types of weapons you claim a right to? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm looking for you to provide something showing you specifically have that right.

There for if shit hits the fan an organization is called every one in that demographic is expected to show up "Bearing ARMS" You must provide your own weapons. And since you have been called up it would not be a good Idea to show up with a fucking musket when the forces you will be facing have modern weaponry to the time. This is why its implied that we have the ability to own what ever is available to the modern foot solider, as during the revolution, the Patriots had arguably better arms than did the British, Rifles in many cases vs the brits and their smooth bore muskets.

So you claim interpretation is not necessary as it's clear as day, but implication is? So which is it, is it clear or is it not?

Reasonable or not, you're assuming it was written with the intention of modernizing weapons as soon as they became available. Well I've got news for you, the weapons you're so desperate to keep are old news. Why are hand guns (old technology) acceptable but weaponized chemicals are not? Is the signing of the Geneva Convention not an infringement upon your right to bear arms as it takes that ability away from you, arms which are not specifically defined? The same argument can be made for a multitude of varying forms of weaponry, what other than interpretation has allowed you to keep your firearms but not other forms of armament.

Here we go again did you even read my last post to you about this shit? Driving is a privilege owning a firearm is RIGHT there is a very big difference there. You, me, and every other American ( I tend to think more so every human on the planet not just us Americans) have a natural (or god given if you swing like that) RIGHT to own and and bare arms. You dont have a right to drive, you have a right to freedom of travel and driving is the primary means to do so, but you dont have a RIGHT to drive, since you can walk, ride, or use many other methods of transport to get where you need or want to go.

It's natural/god given now? So did this natural/god given right exist since the first human, millennia before guns were created or does it simply mean any form of weaponry available at the time? If that's the case, I guess you have a god given right to a suitcase sized nuclear bomb if you can get your hands on one, and any attempts at preventing you from doing so goes against what god intended for you! No, this right is given to you by a piece of paper. You do not have a right to weaponry simply because you were born on Earth.

[Kershaw]

No they haven't.

Mrsleeve, please go back and look at Corvallis' response to vedubin's misleading post. Guns are responsible for 7.5x the amount of deaths than knives. Don't think that we are just harping on assault rifles, they are just the easiest target.

All this said, I enjoy shooting. I'm going to the range with friends this Thursday. However, my quality of life will not be affected if all guns were banned. Or, we moved to a system where guns are kept at ranges or clubs.

Guns are for killing animals and humans. Aside from hunting, they don't really belong in a modern society. In fact, I don't think sport hunting belongs in modern society either.

[VinniE30]

To the people that are clearly anti-guns:
State exactly what your position is and what you want the law to be.
This has gotten to the point now where the pro-rights people have completely defended their position and every anti-gun argument.

[mrsleeve]

^
That is not the point, if it worked where that kinda of thing is a much bigger issue then why will it not work in the us where mostly a disturbed and troubled kid

kershaw
Funny thing you cant remove them here,

And while they have not had a mass shooting since they instituted their ban, their gun crime has continued at roughly the same rate of decline as pre ban, (just like here in the US where all the evil guns are) and their Knife crime has gone up sharply since

http://feminspire.com/wp-content/upl...pon_trends.png

Also as dub pointed out knives are responsiable for 5x more deaths in the US than those evil rifles and including the its going to jump up and kill you because it looks like a SEAL gun AR pattern rifles.

So why are we going to ban those instead of knives again ????

[CorvallisBMW]

Also as recent history has shown us here in the US fanatical Islamists are a bit better trained and how shall we say devoted to what they are trying to do than some crazy kid. Will it stop all this kinda of maybe not, but it would put response times to meet the attacker with armed force into the range of seconds not the 7min average response time of the police, when most damage occurs in the 1st 3-4 mins. By the time the constabulary 1st arrive on the seen and try to get a handle on whats going one most of the victims are already dead

Considering that since 9/11 only 17 Americans have been killed by terrorists in the US but over 100,000 people have died from firearms , and with 16 mass shootings resulting in 88 deaths in 2012 alone, I'd rather take my chances with Derka Muhammad than Joe Blow.

[VinniE30]

In the US the crime rate per 100k people has gone down every year for the past 6 years for violent crime, murder, rape, aggravated assault, and others.
Overall, it's been on a downward trend for a very long time, for decades.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm (source: FBI)

[Kershaw]

So you're saying that even though a small amount of guns, compared to the population, were removed they've had outstanding results?

Huh. I wonder what we could achieve if we removed a really large number of guns. Excellent point, my hat's off to you, sir.