We need to regulate cars the way we regulate guns

[cale]

Based on necessity, what firearms would you allow police to choose to have?

Is your profession responding to violent situations? No it is not, nor do you require having the same capabilities as someone who does. Similarly an army, who's profession is combat has much more vast firepower than the average American citizen despite the argument that the 2nd amendment is for keeping a well armed militia. You do not need the same power as those who rely on that power to do their job day in and day out and justify it on the fear that one day it may be useful. The regulations shouldn't be on capacity, but on the calibre and limiting what needs to be semi-automatic.

I'm still waiting to hear what situation a civilian will encounter where they'll need 30 rounds from a semi-auto rifle

The point of that article was to point out how restrictive and ridiculous, the rules for owning an Assault weapon are, by comparing them to another every day item that is responsible via human operation for killing even more men, women and children.

For this argument to work you first must show us that a gun is just another harmless tool only used for utilitarian functions, but you cannot when every time it is used to do it's job something on the other end is killed or wounded. Like I said, America is right and everywhere else in the world where guns are not so easily accessible are simply police states infringing on "natural rights" to own a gun.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I have friends and family that lived through the LA Riots. At one point, there were no less than 17 Armed (Likely illegally) men trying to gain entrance to a family members home. I'm pretty sure he was happy to have his legally purchased, high capacity weapon on hand at this time, whil his wife and three daughters hid in the bathroom in the middle of the house.


So, go ahead and tell me that shit can't ever happen again.

[frankenbeemer]

Based on necessity, what firearms would you allow police to choose to have?

That was the question.

Is your profession responding to violent situations? No it is not, nor do you require having the same capabilities as someone who does. Similarly an army, who's profession is combat has much more vast firepower than the average American citizen despite the argument that the 2nd amendment is for keeping a well armed militia. You do not need the same power as those who rely on that power to do their job day in and day out and justify it on the fear that one day it may be useful. The regulations shouldn't be on capacity, but on the calibre and limiting what needs to be semi-automatic.

I'm still waiting to hear what situation a civilian will encounter where they'll need 30 rounds from a semi-auto rifle



For this argument to work you first must show us that a gun is just another harmless tool only used for utilitarian functions, but you cannot when every time it is used to do it's job something on the other end is killed or wounded. Like I said, America is right and everywhere else in the world where guns are not so easily accessible are simply police states infringing on "natural rights" to own a gun.

This does not answer it. Why should the police have semiauto weapons and high capacity magazines? You had earlier stated that failing to kill someone with 6 rounds demonstrates incompetence. Do you have a different standard for police?

[mrsleeve]

^
Good point the 3 or 4 cops in NYC last spring that shot at a man 7X times and hit him 3 I think, all non life threatening but hit a couple of bystanders...................... Or how about the SWAT team that raided the wrong House in Tucson, that shot a 2 tour Veteran 4X times out of 76 shots fired. With his weapon at lowered non threatening position because one of the SWAT guys Accidentally Discharged a round into the door casing above his buddies head, so they all just instinctively shot the home owner in front of his wife and daughter then refused him medical attention for an hour while he bled out after dragging him out on to the lawn. DID I MENTION THIS WAS THE WRONG HOUSE. Or how COPS just shoot annoying dogs when raiding the WRONG HOUSE, yes these are the people I want having all the weapons

For this argument to work you first must show us that a gun is just another harmless tool only used for utilitarian functions, but you cannot when every time it is used to do it's job something on the other end is killed or wounded. Like I said, America is right and everywhere else in the world where guns are not so easily accessible are simply police states infringing on "natural rights" to own a gun.

I have explained to you how this is true. I can take any firearm in my home load it cock it disengage the safety and sit it on the table and walk away from it an it will just sit there. It will not harm anyone or anything until the day that SOMEONE picks it up and interacts with it and presses the trigger, that day could be tomorrow it could be 10 years from now or 100 years after my death. Only 1 round will come out, until SOMEONE releases the trigger and PULLS IT AGAIN.

You SOMEONE has to make the weapon do that, just like someone can use a hammer and plunge it though your skull, or SOMEONE can take their car and run you down as you cross the street. A inanimate object is IN-FUCKING-ANIMATE, it cant do things all by itself, A GOD DAMMED PERSON HAS TO BE OPERATING IT. This commonality is what makes everything other than things that are alive THE SAME.

I have a machete in my back country gear, A woman in CHI (IIRC) 3 days ago used the same tool to detain a man that had forced his way into her house. The Machete is favorite tool of the Cartels in Mexico and C-America to torture, kill, and terrorize otherwise peaceable locals. How does my Machete differ from theirs. OH THATS RIGHT IT DOESN'T, I just dont use it on people, see again people are the deciding factor .


Your last sentience, is how I feel about it yes. A govt that disarms its citizens, then has nothing to fear from it its populace, and can run rough shod and commit what ever atrocities and enforce what ever infringements upon them they wish(slavery comes to mind), since they are the only ones with arms. You say it wont happen here in the US or our Hat, You think it wont happen in the western govts that are more civilized. I say your wrong and that true human nature has changed very little in the last 10k years, we are all fat and happy and live easy lives. If and when that changes all bets are off.............. and enjoy your gun free life style.

[herbivor]

You sound like a danger to society. Why aren't your hands registered as deadly weapons?

They are in a since. If you are for instance a black belt in martial arts or a highly trained fighter and kill someone by hand, you can be held had a higher degree legally for your actions than an average unskilled person.

Comparing gun violence to car accidents, ladder accidents, or even knife and fist attacks is stupid and a poor argument. If you are ok with someone owning an assault rifle, than why not a rocket launcher, or nuclear missile? At some point you have to say, "yeah, we're not going to allow that kind of risky weapon for even the most sane and trained person."

[cale]

With his weapon at lowered non threatening position ..... DID I MENTION THIS WAS THE WRONG HOUSE.

Why'd he have a weapon out to begin with with cops coming into his house, especially since he wasn't expecting them? That doesn't justify their actions, but I'm curious why he'd be stupid enough to arm himself as cops were coming into his home. They don't exactly look like a large group of burglars, not a wise move on his part.

I have explained to you how this is true. I can take any firearm in my home load it cock it disengage the safety and sit it on the table and walk away from it an it will just sit there. It will not harm anyone or anything until the day that SOMEONE picks it up and interacts with it and presses the trigger, that day could be tomorrow it could be 10 years from now or 100 years after my death. Only 1 round will come out, until SOMEONE releases the trigger and PULLS IT AGAIN.

Same is true for a nuclear weapon, it takes bad intentions to make a pile of various metals do devastation. By your logic they should also be made available, or is it you who gets to decide to what extent we are allowed to arm ourselves? It's you the gun fanatic who decides that the object of his affection is a reasonable one. Sorry, but no it doesn't work like that. It's why we don't let a four year old decide his own meals, he'd be 100lb's from eating nothing but cookies. Thankfully the majority of developed nations have decided this as well and not everywhere is still the wild west.

This does not answer it. Why should the police have semiauto weapons and high capacity magazines? You had earlier stated that failing to kill someone with 6 rounds demonstrates incompetence. Do you have a different standard for police?

Fuck yes I have a different standard for them, it's their job to react to those situations and take the upper hand, to overcome force with overwhelming force. They've been given that responsibility, you have not and as such you do not get to act like a cop. Maybe you should throw some lights and sirens on your car and pull people over for driving infractions as well, after all their recklessness endangers you.

[mrsleeve]

^

I have no issues with law abiding citizens owning just about anything. Why because they are LAW ABIDING. With your ridiculous NUKE or similar item. it goes well beyond just owning it, you would have to have proper security all the time, you would also have to be able to afford to maintain it and all of it related systems. The cost of which is 8 or 9 zero number, not to mention you would never get to use it EVER. So there would be no point to it.

A 105mm Recoilless rifle on the other hand sure if you can afford to feed it, and have to space to use it or have a place that will allow you to shot it. Have at it, why not, its not something your ever going to use in SD, but so what if you have an are not breaking any laws with it, and just shooting an old car or the odd propane tank on your back 80ac who are you to say NO you cant have that or do that??

Your mind set that the govt needs to step in and protect us from our selves is the issue, not the firearm. Gun violence has been on steady decline for 2 decades in the US and all over the world in nearly ALL 1ST WORLD nations, despite a quickly rising gun ownership and carry rate in the US. A stat your type refuse to take note of. And yes hands, feet, hammers, baseball bats, and other non firearm tools are used to commit many many more murders than all RIFLES Combined. In 2011, there were right around 6000 Gun murders in the US, when you remove shootings by cops and justifiable shooting from citizens. We have 330m people............. The UK has one of the Highest Violent crime rates in the world much much lower in the us.

[cale]

Speaking of stats one side uses in a particular way, I find it hilarious how one person mentioned murders by rifle and now it's parroted in this thread like gospel. Simple Simons think alike. 1694 murders involving an edged weapon, 8583 involving a firearm. I'd be interested to see how many per weapon are criminal vs. criminal and criminal vs. innocent.

As for the type of weapons allowable, yes a nuclear weapon is an extremely bold one but it was simply to make a point. The point that you're not qualified to decide what weapons are and are not acceptable and that you're arguing the weapons you favour simply because you favour them as it's not listed anywhere in your constitution what you're entitled to.

brb laying a defensive anti-personnel mine field around my house, constitution says nothing about those either! hyuck-hyuck

[mrsleeve]

^
Um we are talking about your incorrectly defined Assault weapon that you wish I could not own here not all firearms, and those are rifles, so there for using A RIFLE of ALL TYPE (from Semi auto to trun bolt or single shot) Vs blunt weapons or hands and feet, is a valid comparison since you want to ban just Semi Auto Rifles right.....

Its a FBI ( you know the US Federal GOVT main law enforcement agency) OFFICIAL STAT.

What makes you qualified to decide what a law abiding free man can own??? When you can seem to get your basic terminology straight and cant understand simple statistics from a trusted and reliable source. Wait they are not AGW style graphs and charts, would that help????

Anti Personnel mines would fall under the Destructive Devices classification of the NFA, and too my knowledge NONE were ever sold to private citizens as surplus to put them on the registry so none are .

Why'd he have a weapon out to begin with with cops coming into his house, especially since he wasn't expecting them? That doesn't justify their actions, but I'm curious why he'd be stupid enough to arm himself as cops were coming into his home. They don't exactly look like a large group of burglars, not a wise move on his part.

NO KNOCK WARRANT at 330am. You hear someone kicking your door in at 3am, what are you going to do hop out of bed and go out to the living room to see whats UP with no way to defend him self. 2 tour veteran, goes to closet gets his weapon and is met before he gets out of bed room, trying to ascertain the situation and was holding a non threatening posture with his weapon is MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD in his home in front of his family, and IIRC not on officer was disciplined for it. Nope no police state here

Also being this was the wrong house, He could have resisted and shot every one of those cops and killed every one of them and walked away a free man. In most states AZ is one you can resist with any force needed to stop the encounter an illegal and unlawful assault by the police, the cronyism from the DA all the way down to the patrol officer makes this a foolish endeavor but it is the law.

Same is true for a nuclear weapon, it takes bad intentions to make a pile of various metals do devastation. By your logic they should also be made available, or is it you who gets to decide to what extent we are allowed to arm ourselves? It's you the gun fanatic who decides that the object of his affection is a reasonable one. Sorry, but no it doesn't work like that. It's why we don't let a four year old decide his own meals, he'd be 100lb's from eating nothing but cookies. Thankfully the majority of developed nations have decided this as well and not everywhere is still the wild west.

I have explained this too you why. And really is not a 2a covered weapon, since its not really employed or feasible for an individual rifleman to deploy such weapons on the battle field. Though in the 50's there were nuke tipped artillery shells, but again this would fall under the you cant use it because you cant own enough private land to contain the effects of using it and the security you would have to employ to maintain its security.

I am not a fucking 4 year old. I am a adult and free man, its not for you or anyone else to decide what I get to keep in my home, or carry on my person.

Fuck yes I have a different standard for them, it's their job to react to those situations and take the upper hand, to overcome force with overwhelming force. They've been given that responsibility, you have not and as such you do not get to act like a cop. Maybe you should throw some lights and sirens on your car and pull people over for driving infractions as well, after all their recklessness endangers you.

This is BULL SHIT.

Cops are people too, and they should be held to a higher standard than everyone else sadly thats not been the case in many situations. I have given just a few examples of how they fuck up seaming constantly and are protected form reprisal because of the badge they hold.

Not only that ITS NOT THEIR JOB to take the upper hand and overcome force with force. Its their job to enforce the law. They have NO duty to endanger their lives to save yours . NONE, to put it simply they dont have to do shit for you wile some Fuck head is raping your wife and cutting her up with a meat cleaver while you bleed out. You seem to have ignored most of my responses to your many arguments other than 1st sentences. Deshany Vs Winnebago County, and Warren Vs DC are 2 of the 3 cases I can cite off the top of my head. Many Officers do risk their lives of their own accord and those are the actions that are to be commended and those are the officers that deserve to wear that badge and be bestowed the trust of the public.

The Police WORK FOR US, they are paid by us and its their job to enforce the laws. We are not the subjects of our elected officials, and the police are not supposed to be enforcers of the those officials whims and fancy, but the guardians of the general population, is this still the case??

I am not a cop, I am not going to put lights and noise makers on my truck and drive around and pretend to be a cop. I would make a horrible cop, I would not hassle people that were driving 5,10 or 15 over at 2am, I would not mess with people talking on their phone that is not affecting their driving, I would not mess with people that run a yellow a split second to late, or not wearing a seat belt, just so I can see if I can find something bigger going on.

I carry a firearm, because I dont have a cop assigned to be my personal security and swear an oath to die to protect me, nor is there one stationed at my house 27/7 to do the same for my family. I carry a firearm because lets face if shit happens I more than likely would not have time to call one, and then he would have to come find me, and then decide if he wants to risk helping me or going home to see his kids latter in the night????

If the cops can have it why cant I, since arguably when it comes to shit like this I have to know the law better than they do, and I have to follow it...................

[herbivor]

^

I have no issues with law abiding citizens owning just about anything. Why because they are LAW ABIDING.

We are all emotional beings. You may be the most law abiding, sane, and well trained persons on the planet, but that doesn't mean you will remain that way your whole life. People's life circumstances change. You may catch your lady cheating on you with a hippy and feel the urge to shoot him in the face. If you have a gun, those chances are much greater, even if you are LAW ABIDING when you buy the gun.

[cale]

long winded rant

Sorry, but we're never going to agree on this. Two differing opinions, sadly you seem to refuse what you possess is an opinion.

What makes you qualified to decide what a law abiding free man can own???

Sadly not everyone is law abiding, and the possession by those who do abide by the law trickles down to those who aren't. Most illegal firearms were once legal, as well as most used in crimes. This is a point you seem to excuse as a cost of doing business, I do not and that's what this seems to boil down to.

And really is not a 2a covered weapon, since its not really employed or feasible for an individual rifleman to deploy such weapons on the battle field.

Ah right, interpretation of a document which needs no interpretation is needed to decide what is and is not acceptable.

[mrsleeve]

^
This is not a matter of opinion, that fact that you keep trying to make one is where you totally lose all semblance of credibility

Is it your opinion that you have right to free speech or is it a matter of fact that you have a freedom to speak as you please ????


Herbie what the fuck was that, this is real life not Minority report
Oh I See, so we should limit what a person can own because of what we might do with it??? I see then all cars should be limited to 75, because you "might" someday drive faster than that and owning a car that "can go" faster than that means you will someday commit that crime right????. But what about in a 35mph School zone, you might drive to fast there, why should you be trusted with that 75mph top speed since you might drive faster than that in that school zone???

As to the little woman fucking a hippie, unlikely she hates them as much as I do. If she did, or anyone sure I would be hurt, but thats not going to make me wish to kill either of them. I will just walk away a free man with ALL my stuff rather than just 1/2 of it at best ;) . I am not the jealous type, I dont care about shit like that, if thats what a person wants to do then so be it, nothing I can do to stop it, hope it was worth it, now get the fuck out of my house.

Besides if I didnt have a firearm what stops me from beating them to death with lamp on the night stand, or strangling them with the cord, or tossing them off the deck, or just going all stabby stabby?????? If I snap and want to kill someone lack of a firearm is not going to stop me. You know accidents happen all the time too................................. Lack of firearms is not going to keep from killing people.


Since I own many firearms and carry one around you better call 411 and get hold of the Tom Cruise of the Pre Crime Division.

[cale]

^
Oh I See so we should limit what a person can own because of what we might do with it???

You seem to think so, you've already said many items fall under a destructive devices classification, or do you think you should be allowed to have mass explosives.

Or how about drugs? What's your stance on legalizing cocaine and heroin. Heroin is harmless unless abused, and even then it only harms the user unless they decide to hop in a vehicle. Just as easy to abuse a drug as a firearm, so I suspect you'll support the legalization of all banned substances as well?

Besides if I didnt have a firearm what stops me from beating them to death with lamp on the night stand, or strangling them with the cord, or tossing them off the deck, or just going all stabby stabby?????? If I snap and want to kill someone lack of a firearm is not going to stop me.

Looking at that FBI list, the likelihood of using one of those random objects is quite low compared to a firearm. So you're right, why would you when you have the right to a life ending weapon :D

I am not a fucking 4 year old. I am a adult and free man, its not for you or anyone else to decide what I get to keep in my home, or carry on my person.

That was worded wrong, I'm not implying you are irresponsible. Merely that people will fight passionately for what they're passionate about, whether or not it's good for them and that such passion makes them a poor candidate for deciding.

As for what you can keep, refer to land mines and drugs once more.

[Farbin Kaiber]

AHahhahah, smartypants Canadian is talking about using a female action hero as a drug.

And, yes, I feel the legalization of ALL drugs would be fine in my opinion. The money saved "fighting the drug war" would pay for the clinical help for those with an addiction ten times over.

[cale]

AHahhahah, smartypants Canadian is talking about using a female action hero as a drug.

Quoted because your original post was just pick on grammar, classy.