We need to regulate cars the way we regulate guns

[Farbin Kaiber]

I think you are a fucking dolt, and it wasn't picking on grammar, it was picking on spelling you idiot.

[cale]

Well in that case, Nobel prize in literature for post #44. At least the feelings are mutual.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Well in that case, Nobel prize in literature for post #44.

Wait, are you trying to nominate people for a cash prize that is paid for from the profits of a device that has no other use other than a weapon to kill?

[mrsleeve]

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.

in to the 50's you could by dynamite and Nitro at the local hardware store.... What stops me from going out a buying some common house hold items and making some land mines?? I can go to walmart an get everything I need... Oh yeah that would land me 10 years in prison and at least 10k in fines, so this is why I dont do that, because it falls under the NFA. Hell to be honest I think I could come up with enough shit laying around in your house to make such things.

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?

Well played. You know this, that in principle I agree they should be legalized, but morally I am not a fan. Your right abuse is easy, and I would support a full legalization and "common sense regulation" if there was a reliable means of quickly and accessing impairment from substances available (this is something I have been changing my views on with lots of thought on the matter in the last few months) . But prohibition of them like alcohol has lead to bloody and dangerous black market for them, just like will happen when you ban firearms. Though the implications of a firearms prohibition would be far grater reaching.

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 dont see a Crime of Passion classed out and what was used to carry it out there either ;)

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.

I know what you were implying, my point still remains who are you to say what I a free man and adult can own and keep in my home and on my person?

[cale]

in to the 50's you could by dynamite and Nitro at the local hardware store.... What stops me from going out a buying some common house hold items and making some land mines?? I can go to walmart an get everything I need... Oh yeah that would land me 10 years in prison and at least 10k in fines, so this is why I dont do that, because it falls under the NFA. Hell to be honest I think I could come up with enough shit laying around in your house to make such things.

I know what you were implying, my point still remains who are you to say what I a free man and adult can own and keep in my home and on my person?

We're never going to see eye to eye on those types of comparisons, because I will never equate a gun to an object who's primary utility is peaceful. That's enough about that.

I can't say because your constitution gives you that right. I will not however concede I think it's a good idea, on the contrary I think laxidasical gun laws have a direct impact on violent crime stats in the US. I also believe a line needs to be drawn as to what is allowable, and guns tread that line finely. Therefore they need to be substantiated, kept to reasonable amounts, sensible calibres and styles and strict controls on who can own. Other than our terrible long gun registry, I think Canada is a good example. That's my opinion, agree or don't. Meh

Enough back and forth from me, I'll chime in again when I get my shotgun :D

[mrsleeve]

^
One last little fun fact if you care to verify it or not I dont give a flying fuck.

The stat is a few years old, from 2009, but the when you include ALL violent crime not just those committed with a firearm, the UK records 2000 Instances per 100k in population. In the US, 466 incidents of general VIOLENT crime per 100k in population. The UK is considered the most dangerous State in Europe and 2ed behind Australia of all the "rich" nations according to the 2ed link from around 2009 as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

Think maybe the presence of all those firearms here in the US might deture some of that violent crime, after all criminals may be criminals that dose not mean they are stupid too.

[Fusion]

I hear the 2nd Am. argument over and over again. I wonder what those who use that argument think would happen if the government really turned into a dictatorship and sent the army to take you to a concentration camp.
We have the most adavanced military in the world and some think they can fight it? How? From your mostly wooden house like Waco? By forming militias of untrained individuals?
An AR15 may work against a crowd of unarmed people. Replace those innocents with Marines and suddenly it becomes quite obsolete.

[mrsleeve]

^
Posse Comitatus........................

Marines are also US citizens and their primary mission is defend US citizens, I have much faith in our Service men and women that the VAST majority will know illegal orders if they ever hear them, and will follow their oath to disobey those orders...


You really think the military by and large will turn their arms on the Population just because they are told to ????


If orders like that ever do come though it will have to be the UN or the Chinese or some other Foreign troops that dont want to be here trying to do the rounding up. And when you add up the just the deer hunters of 5 average states, you have more heavily armed people out wandering around in the woods hoping to shoot a deer, than the 3 largest military's total personnel in the world combined. All with arms and many with the skills to hit targets at ranges far beyond the maximum effective distance of what a average rifleman's "assault weapon" cartridge is capable of.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I hear the 2nd Am. argument over and over again. I wonder what those who use that argument think would happen if the government really turned into a dictatorship and sent the army to take you to a concentration camp.
We have the most adavanced military in the world and some think they can fight it? How? From your mostly wooden house like Waco? By forming militias of untrained individuals?
An AR15 may work against a crowd of unarmed people. Replace those innocents with Marines and suddenly it becomes quite obsolete.

Or, think about the fact that the majority of the military will uphold the constitution, and that if it were to happen one would need to defend themselves against the great military tactics of the DHS and the TSA, it becomes a much more plausible concept.

[Vedubin01]

I hear the 2nd Am. argument over and over again. I wonder what those who use that argument think would happen if the government really turned into a dictatorship and sent the army to take you to a concentration camp.
We have the most adavanced military in the world and some think they can fight it? How? From your mostly wooden house like Waco? By forming militias of untrained individuals?
An AR15 may work against a crowd of unarmed people. Replace those innocents with Marines and suddenly it becomes quite obsolete.

Yeah I guess that "most advanced military in the world" has accomplished its mission in Afghanistan over the last 10 years fighting less armed people than here in the States?

[Fusion]

I wouldn't compare a country with 30+ years of war to a consumer society.
I'm not making conclusions, I just wonder how people think shit would go down and especially, what is the tipping point? Of course a US president wouldn't proclaim himself dictator, it would probably be implemented in a much calmer, "democratic" way. Also, the military's mission would have to be to protect the ones not doing anything from the "revolutionists". But Farbin makes a point. So what would have to happen for those willing to take down the govt. to take to the streets and build barricades?

[e30e]

Every time I hear someone say they need a gun to protect themselves from the government; I want to punch myself in the balls. If the government were to really take over peoples lives, not a single shot would be fired. They'd simply release a biological agent. Government revolution of people will happen without a single shop fired, they don't need the guns to do it.

As for gun people, their like arguing with a woman. Its pointless.

[cale]

You really think the military by and large will turn their arms on the Population just because they are told to ????

Just adding to sleeve's post, because he's absolutely right.

Most people serve nowadays not because the British are coming, but because they want a stable paycheck and dental coverage for little Johnny. The likelihood of them taking up arms against their own citizens, nill. In fact I believe a survey was done in the military regarding acting on orders to fire upon their own country and it was an overwhelming go fuck yourself to that order.

That, and you overestimate the ability for technology to overcome a highly motivated guerrilla force. I have no doubts that with the amount of armed citizens in the US even if the military were to stay, lets generously say 50% intact, that those citizens together could easily hold off if not overcome the army. You have to take into account that the overwhelming majority of a professional army is in support trades, with guerrilla fighters your first priority is fighting. Please refer to Afghanistan for an example on small scale, the longer these sorts of conflict go on the more ingrained in youth since birth that picking up a gun is the noble thing to do.

[mrsleeve]

^
Thank you, I dont expect us to ever agree on this kind of topic, but at least on this very important aspect of it your much more in step with the nature of the debate than most of the other people who sit in your chair.

Every time I hear someone say they need a gun to protect themselves from the government; I want to punch myself in the balls. If the government were to really take over peoples lives, not a single shot would be fired. They'd simply release a biological agent. Government revolution of people will happen without a single shop fired, they don't need the guns to do it.

As for gun people, their like arguing with a woman. Its pointless.

Your missing the point, the mere fact that the population is armed is a Check and Balance to the Govt over stepping its role. You know how govt is supposed to work right??? The 3 separate but equal branches of the Federal govt to CHECK and BALANCE all that power. Then we have an additional layer in the states. But the biggest Check of ALL govt power is the people retaining the ability to check the use of force against them.

Its not that we think or hope that we will get the opportunity to shoot blue helmets, or have fantasies about a revolt against the govt. NONE OF US want or are calling for an armed overthrow of any govt, NO ONE WANTS THAT ( well no sane person does).

But to think we are going to just surrender our arms or our rights, because of a few acts by a few crazy fucks is ludicrous. You ask why we give the answer in plains kings English, and the ACTUAL INTENT and reasoning behind why the 2a was put in So simple and no uncertain terms and why its still important to this very day. SO I suggest the you punch your self in the balls becuase that set of FACTS are not going to go away.

Fusion: You seem to forget that when people are threatened especially in their home land they will dig their heals in and fight for it. And we Americans in general are a stubborn bunch. AS to the dictator thing, There was a bill introduced in the house on the 1st day of session form some fuck stick from IL to reamend the constitution to repeal the 22ed, assumption so the big fucking 0 can run again. Will it go anywhere NO, doubtful, but dont think its not being brought up. I will find the bill number for ya

edit: Sorry it was some fuck stick for NY, and while this comes up all the time and never goes anywhere, and would never get 3/4 of the states to ratify it its not like its not being thought about and being brought up all the time.

H.J.RES.15 is the bill number introduced on 2ed day of secession.

[Fusion]

Ok, I can understand that. But than when do you decide that the government is overstepping its role and pull the gun out? Againt who? Social services? The EPA? TSA?
If a full gun ban were put in place, if you were in San Antonio, would you just point the gun in the direction of Washington and pop a couple rounds?
Seems to me that then it's just a mental reassurance.