Home raided over photo....

[z31maniac]

So your ok with the cops knocking on your door at 10pm demanding entry into your property/residence "to look around" for what ever reason with no warrant?

What does the 4th Amendment have to do with more inclusive background checks for people who wish to purchase a firearm?

[Mr. Tasty]

Libertarian checking in. It's not that I need a weapon or semi-automatic rifle in my possession for self defense, it's the fact that I should be able to do what ever I want, as long as it is not affecting people's lives.

Again, like I posted before in this thread, focus on the mental health of the people who are purchasing or owning any sort of weapon.

[cale]

Yuppers

That's where you and I will not only fundamentally disagree, but that you're wrong when referring to rights in another country. A right to self defense does not immediately include a right to bear arms, that right is granted by governments such is the case for America and it's constitution. You are most certainly capable of defending yourself without a firearm, you're just not as at as much of an advantage. Similarly, you're not as at as much of an advantage with a revolver as you are if you had a bunker in your bedroom and a light machine gun pointed at the door. You're in favor of firearm possession, so you immediately assume a correlation between the two, particularly the types of firearms YOU have a passion for owning.

In your country yes you have that right to firearms, but in others like the UK and Canada you do not. That does NOT mean you do not have a right to self defense, and your inability to differentiate between the two does not paint you in a good light. You're incapable of comprehending the justification for tighter gun restriction, you're in no way an ideal candidate for deciding how situations should be handled outside of your own wild west fantasy land.

It's the fact that I should be able to do what ever I want, as long as it is not affecting people's lives.

So we allow everyone to do as they please and respond to abuse of this freedom after an act is already carried out? America is already up to its eyeballs in trying to get a grip on people breaking legitimate and necessary laws, could you imagine adding a whole new wave of people who now feel as though they are justified in this type of behavior? This type of proposed society would be full of people abusing such freedom and would have law enforcement chaotically trying to play catch up. Societies need boundaries, proposing otherwise is utterly insane.

[Mr. Tasty]

your kinda confused on the whole rights Vs Privileges thing aren't you???

Of course it is contradictory, It is called satisfying as many people as you can. What exactly is flawed against my opinion? I used to agree with most of what you say, but honestly you seem too hard headed to take any answer other than your own.

[slammin.e28]

So, those of you who oppose guns, or want more restrictions on guns.

Do you support equal marriage for all?

Thought so.

It seems the majority of people who tout this equal RIGHTS for all will turn around and try to get RIGHTS taken away from people at the same time.

Codyep3 hit it on the head. Quit trying to affect my life. Same sex couples want to get married? Hey, GOP, back the fuck off. Who the fuck does it affect? I, a law abiding citizen of the United States of America (FUCK YEAHHH) with a clear mental and criminal background want to own a firearm, auto, semi auto, handheld, bazooka, whatever...I should be allowed to.

I've noticed a lot of this shit going on on both sides.

[Mr. Tasty]

So, those of you who oppose guns, or want more restrictions on guns.

Do you support equal marriage for all?

Thought so.

It seems the majority of people who tout this equal RIGHTS for all will turn around and try to get RIGHTS taken away from people at the same time.

Codyep3 hit it on the head. Quit trying to affect my life. Same sex couples want to get married? Hey, GOP, back the fuck off. Who the fuck does it affect? I, a law abiding citizen of the United States of America (FUCK YEAHHH) with a clear mental and criminal background want to own a firearm, auto, semi auto, handheld, bazooka, whatever...I should be allowed to.

I've noticed a lot of this shit going on on both sides.

Thank you fellow libertarian. Life is too god damn short for me to be worrying about gay marriage. Honestly couldn't care less, but it should not have government intervention. As long as I am not running people over with my e30, or killing 6 year old kids, there should not be any questioning of my actions.

[frankenbeemer]

That's where you and I will not only fundamentally disagree, but that you're wrong when referring to rights in another country. A right to self defense does not immediately include a right to bear arms, that right is granted by governments such is the case for America and it's constitution. You are most certainly capable of defending yourself without a firearm, you're just not as at as much of an advantage. Similarly, you're not as at as much of an advantage with a revolver as you are if you had a bunker in your bedroom and a light machine gun pointed at the door. You're in favor of firearm possession, so you immediately assume a correlation between the two, particularly the types of firearms YOU have a passion for owning.

In your country yes you have that right to firearms, but in others like the UK and Canada you do not. That does NOT mean you do not have a right to self defense, and your inability to differentiate between the two does not paint you in a good light. You're incapable of comprehending the justification for tighter gun restriction, you're in no way an ideal candidate for deciding how situations should be handled outside of your own wild west fantasy land.



So we allow everyone to do as they please and respond to abuse of this freedom after an act is already carried out? America is already up to its eyeballs in trying to get a grip on people breaking legitimate and necessary laws, could you imagine adding a whole new wave of people who now feel as though they are justified in this type of behavior? This type of proposed society would be full of people abusing such freedom and would have law enforcement chaotically trying to play catch up. Societies need boundaries, proposing otherwise is utterly insane.

Does your list of legitimate and necessary laws include a life sentence for defending yourself with a gun?

Sleeve is proposing no boundaries? I never thought he was an anarchist.

Of course it is contradictory, It is called satisfying as many people as you can. What exactly is flawed against my opinion? I used to agree with most of what you say, but honestly you seem too hard headed to take any answer other than your own.

I would call that tyranny of the majority, perhaps. But I'm not mad at you, bro.

[Mr. Tasty]

I would call that tyranny of the majority, perhaps. But I'm not mad at you, bro.

I know, idealistic conditions never happen, but I remain an Idealist.

[frankenbeemer]

I too am cursed with that flaw.

[slammin.e28]

It's all about states rights. The Fed covers to broad a spectrum of people. They need to dial it the fuck back.

You want guns banned? Go to a state that has likewise thinking people and have your totalitarian state.

There's 50 states. Should be enough to satisfy every angle of political and ideological thinking, and if none of them do, there's always Canada.

Why even have states if the Feds are going to make all the decisions? I propose one big fucking America. No borders. Just America.

[Mr. Tasty]

It's all about states rights. The Fed covers to broad a spectrum of people. They need to dial it the fuck back.

You want guns banned? Go to a state that has likewise thinking people and have your totalitarian state.

There's 50 states. Should be enough to satisfy every angle of political and ideological thinking, and if none of them do, there's always Canada.

Why even have states if the Feds are going to make all the decisions? I propose one big fucking America. No borders. Just America.

True, power to the states. Federal power is a no-go in my humble opinnion.

[iamsam]

you people mire yourselves so deeply in all of the minutiae of arguments in moral logic, terminology, semantics, and general opinion-pushing.

My question is this:

In the US, what will banning various levels of weaponry actually do??

I propose it will actually do more harm than good, realistically.

That said, I agree with power to the states. It is in fact the United States of America, not the "United Peoples of America". If you want gun control, move to Chicago or DC, and good riddance!!

[cale]

Does your list of legitimate and necessary laws include a life sentence for defending yourself with a gun?

Good example here
http://www.allsafedefense.com/Articl...in-England.htm

You mean like the guy in the case which Sleeve referenced? Your quite quick to hop onto a story which justifies your cause aren't you? Perhaps it's best if you actually educate yourself on what actually transpired before you try to use it as an argument for your cause?

Martin had equipped himself with an illegally-held pump-action Winchester Model 1300 12 bore[6] shotgun which he claimed to have found.[7] Martin had his shotgun certificate revoked in 1994 after he found a man scrumping for apples in his orchard and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle.

Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit - fatally - in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their legs.

But his claim that he had shot at them from halfway down the stairs was apparently disproved by scientific evidence that showed he must have fired his shotgun from the doorway of a downstairs room. The prosecution accused him of lying in wait for the burglars and opening fire without warning from close range, in retribution for previous break-ins at his home.

And as for his life conviction...

Martin was convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, and served three years in prison, having been denied parole.

To summarize, educate yourselves and don't be so quick to eat up propaganda garbage simply because it suites your taste.

Sleeve is proposing no boundaries? I never thought he was an anarchist.

Please tell me how comments made towards a quote from someone else is indicative of me claiming Sleeve to be proposing no boundaries?

[frankenbeemer]

You still didn't answer the question.

[cale]

No it does not. I am in 100% support of defending ones life with deadly force if the situation requires it, and that includes using a gun within the boundaries of the law if you legally own one.