What firearms do you own?

[quote name='thrustbucket']Pizza, I'm all for banning guns as long as you make them so illegal that cops and military can't have them either. [/quote]

Up to this point, I can agree.

It would require the Second Amendment to be repealed.

Also, I would dissolve a standing army since it isn't necessary and would give the government less leverage in a takeover.

Then, penalties for firearm and firearm paraphernalia possession would have to be increased substantially (life imprisonment or death penalty).

The only downside is that people in power in our country can't be trusted.

If the government knew there weren't 100 million gun nuts out there, what would they attempt to enact over the course of 200 years?

Regarding all of those European countries, how much control does the government have over their respective populations? Are their populations homogenous? How old are the governments?
 
I've said this before but I'll say it again: Cars have an independent utility seperate and distinct from taking lives. Guns don't so Thrust, this effectively blows your car analogy out of the water.

Additionally, the fact that your guns have not yet killed you or others doesn't change the nationwide facts. Also, FYI, you're more likely to have your gun used against you than you are to use it against an intruder, statistically speaking of course. But you're probably differerent right? Highly trained? No hesitation or something like that?? RRrrriiight.

My point about guns over lives is not insane at all. It's evidenced by the fact that we as a society know guns kill tens of thousands of people every year, and still tolerate them. They're more legal than marijuana. If guns saved lives I'd see your point Thrust, but they don't. They take them. They're made for killing and thats it. If your argument was about life preservers, fire extinguishers, or difibulators, I'd agree. But it's not, it's about guns. Guns serve one purpose: To take (or threaten) lives.

Thrust, my life, nor the lives of those I love have ever been threatened. Once I was clubbed on the head with a pipe when I delivered pizzas, but then they just walked away (didn't even take my money). If I had a gun I might have killed them. Thank G-d I didn't, b/c I would not want that weight on my shoulders psychologically. IF you think it's negligible I recommend you read Crime and Punishment.

So what I rely on and put faith in to protect myself and others is the fact that I don't need to, police, prisons, and the CJ system. Even though I don't live in the best of neighborhoods, I still live in a safe society where people aren't going around constantly killing each other. This aint Iraq. It would be a whole hell of a lot safer if people weren't allowed to have guns too.

You're completley missing the point that owning a gun puts you at more risk of being shot, or some innocent party being shot, than the likely hood of effectively using it to protect yourself from death or serious bodily harm. If this wasn't so, then you would have some decent points, but it is, so you don't. Your entire premise "Guns=protection" is totally fucked and the opposite is true. Guns=risk of death (and a much greater risk to you, your kids, your neighbors, etc. than any possible perceived intruder).

To answer your question: Yes I beleive in the second amendment. I beleive it exists. Do I support it? Yes and no. I support it in it's context b/c unlike most people, I actually know what the fuckin thing says and know that the entire premise is prefaced with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." You see, I know that this only gives militias (a.k.a. police forces) the right have guns. Even then I think a better policy would be England's where only special forces use guns and the rest use less than lethal weaponry. So now that you actually know what the 2nd Amendment says and means, I can tell you that yeah, I do support it. Though it probably doesn't mean what you though it did, does it?

Ha, I bet you weren't planning on getting a "Yes" to that question while it still bolstered my position and hurt yours, were ya? I love teaching people about the constitution b/c they usually point to it in support of points that have absolutley no support in the actual constitution. Soooo many misconceptions about it. To avoid this mistake in the future Thurst, next time I suggest you actually read it before telling me what it says, lol.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Regarding all of those European countries, how much control does the government have over their respective populations? Are their populations homogenous? How old are the governments?[/quote]

Enough control that they're functioning A-ok, with tens of thousands less gun deaths per year than us.

Homogenous...Umm... I dunno, depends on the country I guess. I can tell you that France and England are quite diverse, FWIW.

England and France's gov. is older than ours that I know for sure, others I dunno about.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']It's like I said: some people (I guess FOC and thrust included) just value guns over lives. The successful gun bans in most other Western Democracies prove this empirically and conclusively. Believe it or not, England, France, Canada, Denmark (the list goes on and on) have not yet raped and pillaged their populace, even though their populace isn't armed.[/quote]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

Correction to PP - some people (I guess Jefferson and Franklin included) just value freedom over a temporary and false sense of safety.

PP you should really go read about Huey Long and McCarthy before you get too smug about America's supposed invincible representative democracy.
 
PP,
Thank you for totally falling into the stereotypical side of the car debate response I clearly predicted you would with "They aren't made to kill people", allowing yourself to once again, and predictably, miss the entire point of my rebuttal to your "Reality According to Statistics" argument.

Your pretentious level is off the charts today so I'll ;) at the majority of your post and skip to this:

[quote name='pittpizza']To answer your question: Yes I beleive in the second amendment. I beleive it exists. Do I support it? Yes and no. I support it in it's context b/c unlike most people, I actually know what the fuckin thing says and know that the entire premise is prefaced with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." You see, I know that this only gives militias (a.k.a. police forces) the right have guns. Even then I think a better policy would be England's where only special forces use guns and the rest use less than lethal weaponry. So now that you actually know what the 2nd Amendment says and means, I can tell you that yeah, I do support it. Though it probably doesn't mean what you though it did, does it? [/quote]

You know huh? You know that's what it means? You completely failed to quote the entire amendment for a reason, it's so cute how you are as slick as a Clinton.

Ha, I bet you weren't planning on getting a "Yes" to that question while it still bolstered my position and hurt yours, were ya? I love teaching people about the constitution b/c they usually point to it in support of points that have absolutley no support in the actual constitution. Soooo many misconceptions about it. To avoid this mistake in the future Thurst, next time I suggest you actually read it before telling me what it says, lol.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are riding around in your own "I'm right" parade while you are clearly dead wrong. This is what happens when you get most of your education from far left sources.

Let's study this together. You really only need a 6th grade level understanding of English and how the law works, which I'm sure you have.
Now since you only wanted to focus on the first part, at least I'll be more fair and include the whole thing while I focus on the second.

The original Second amendment, as it was written and passed by congress and the senate, by people that were clearly afraid of governments getting out of control:

[quote name='Scribe, William Lambert']“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” [/quote]


If what you believe about the second amendment only applying to militias/police force is true, you are essentially saying that whoever wrote the bill of rights was a moron and didn't understand English.

If your interpretation of the second ammendment was correct, two things would be different:

1-It would have replaced the word PEOPLE with MILITIA.
2 -Immediately upon the amendment entering law, all gun ownership outside of a police force would have been made illegal (your dream).

But since the amendment was passed, with neither of those things happening, that's clearly not what was meant. Otherwise the people that had signed it would have been pretty upset that everyone still had guns.

So now that we have proven that the Second Amendment is clearly stating that private PEOPLE, separate from militias, should keep and bear arms, do you support that or not?
 
It wasnt much of a prediction Thrust, since that rebuttal blows your argument to shit. It's like trying to insult the defense for tackling the halfback because they knew it was gonna be a running play on 3rd&1. Don't blame me for blowin up your halfback in the backfield sucka. Next time call a better play.

I guess you didn't know that police forces (a.k.a. militias) were made up of the people back then, not by the government. TO understand the text, you must understand the words and what they meant in the time they were used. (It's why the title Pride and Prejudice makes sense when you consider what "pride" meant as Jane Austin used it).

So yeah, it ought to say people because these are who comprised the police. I guess that totally blows your entire last post out of the water.

Care to keep trying?

Camoor, I love that Franklin quote, and have used it several times in Appellate oral argument. You're confused here however, b/c there is no essential liberty involved except the right of police to have guns. It can also be flipped around and used against anti-gun-control arguments if you consider the right to life, or the right to be free from being shot as "essential liberties" which I do. I think the right to life is the most fundamental liberties and why it ought to be protected.

So while your catch-phrases sound nice, you best leave em at home when you're going toe-to-toe with me; especially when they do more to support my position than yours.

To be sure, the founding fathers had no idea what their conception of "arms" would eventually evolve into. I doubt they would have put that Amendment in there if they knew what beasts of weaponry modern technology would produce.

To take the debate in a different direction, surely you don't advocate the right of every person to own a nuke? A tank? A bazooka? A machinegun? A handgrenade? Where do you draw the line?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

I guess you didn't know that police forces (a.k.a. militias) were made up of the people back then, not by the government. TO understand the text, you must understand the words and what they meant in the time they were used. (It's why the title Pride and Prejudice makes sense when you consider what "pride" meant as Jane Austin used it).

So yeah, it ought to say people because these are who comprised the police. I guess that totally blows your entire last post out of the water.

Care to keep trying?

[/QUOTE]

Not really. But since you've still failed to address this point properly, I think you should keep trying.

You are saying the second amendment was only ever meant to apply organized police forces. Right?

So what is your explanation for people lawfully being able to keep guns after the second amendment was written?

Do you really want us to believe that from the day it was written, it was never enforced as intended?

It was a huge misunderstanding that lasts till today? Is that really your argument?

Do you have documented evidence of any of the signers/writer of the second amendment complaining that it didn't get guns out of the hands of the common folk? Don't you think it's very very odd they wouldn't have been upset the amendment was taken wrong right away if your interpretation is correct?

So in American History according to pitpizza: the founding fathers wrote something, but they meant something else, and there is no historical proof that they were upset it wasn't enforced as pittpizza believes it was intended.

Which is more likely? That your interpretation doesn't match the authors of the amendment? Or that they wrote an amendment that was never enforced as intended from day one?


******
And as a side note, I keep wondering, after you repeatedly use European countries as an ideal model example for how you would like to see so many different things changed, why don't you just move there. Furthermore, is there anything you like about our country or the way it was set up at all?

You seem so impressed with European governments, laws, and society... at what point does it become a fool's errand to try and get the US to emulate them?

Is it not accurate that you find more to like in European governments than ours?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Not really. But since you've still failed to address this point properly, I think you should keep trying.

You are saying the second amendment was only ever meant to apply organized police forces. Right?

So what is your explanation for people lawfully being able to keep guns after the second amendment was written?[/quote]

I'm saying that the 2nd Amendment (in today's parlence) begins with "Since it is necessary for the police to have guns...."

The explanation for the people being lawfully able to keep guns after it was written is because THE PEOPLE WERE THE POLICE!! Am I getting through to you at all? Militias and the people who made them up (not government officials) had the right to bear arms.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
Do you really want us to believe that from the day it was written, it was never enforced as intended?

It was a huge misunderstanding that lasts till today? Is that really your argument?[/quote]

No, my point is that the Amendment was passed so the government couldn't prevent the police forces/militia/people from having guns. It was carried out as intended since militias/police continue to have guns.


[quote name='thrustbucket']
Do you have documented evidence of any of the signers/writer of the second amendment complaining that it didn't get guns out of the hands of the common folk? Don't you think it's very very odd they wouldn't have been upset the amendment was taken wrong right away if your interpretation is correct?

So in American History according to pitpizza: the founding fathers wrote something, but they meant something else, and there is no historical proof that they were upset it wasn't enforced as pittpizza believes it was intended.

Which is more likely? That your interpretation doesn't match the authors of the amendment? Or that they wrote an amendment that was never enforced as intended from day one?[/quote]
Neither is the case: It was and continues to be enforced as intended. The militia/police still do have guns, and this is what the 2nd Amendment protects. Get it now?



[quote name='thrustbucket']
And as a side note, I keep wondering, after you repeatedly use European countries as an ideal model example for how you would like to see so many different things changed, why you don't move there. Furthermore, is there anything you like about our country or the way it was set up at all?

You seem so impressed with European governments, laws, and society... at what point does it become a fool's errand to try and get the US to emulate them?[/quote]


Ah ha, the ol' hillbilly knee-jerk response comes out: "If you don't like our country then get the fuck out!" Finally thrust shows his true colors.

It is never a fools errand to try to improve your country. If examples abound of how to do so, you ought to ask yourself: Who is the true patriot? WHo really loves their country? (1) The one willing to learn what works from other countries to make his nation better, or (2) The one who says "fuck other countries, if you love em so much, why don't you just leave and go live with them?"

FWIW, I do like the way some other countries do some particular things better. I like some other nation's healthcare systems, gun laws, and drug laws better. Still, IMO the USA is the best country there is (especially before Bush took over) in the grand scheme of things when everythign is taken into account.

Lets play fair thrust, I've answered all your questions decisively. Now you answer mine:

To take the debate in a different direction, surely you don't advocate the right of every person to own a nuke? A tank? A bazooka? A machinegun? A handgrenade? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Camoor, I love that Franklin quote, and have used it several times in Appellate oral argument. You're confused here however, b/c there is no essential liberty involved except the right of police to have guns. It can also be flipped around and used against anti-gun-control arguments if you consider the right to life, or the right to be free from being shot as "essential liberties" which I do. I think the right to life is the most fundamental liberties and why it ought to be protected.

So while your catch-phrases sound nice, you best leave em at home when you're going toe-to-toe with me; especially when they do more to support my position than yours.

To be sure, the founding fathers had no idea what their conception of "arms" would eventually evolve into. I doubt they would have put that Amendment in there if they knew what beasts of weaponry modern technology would produce.

To take the debate in a different direction, surely you don't advocate the right of every person to own a nuke? A tank? A bazooka? A machinegun? A handgrenade? Where do you draw the line?[/quote]

So you don't mention the Jefferson quote? A little too "revolutionary" for you buddy? Because that's what the founding fathers were. Revolutionaries. They knew that all power is ultimately derived from the barrel of a gun and they sought to take that power out of the hands of tyrants and put it back in the hands of the people.

Then you dare to presume that the founding fathers were idiots who couldn't figure out that technology evolves over time. Never mind they all had a classical education, learning about military history right up to their time period, never mind they pioneered certain guerilla warfare tactics in the face of a larger and more powerful military force - according to PP they had no idea gunpowder could evolve to be used for anything more efficient then their current time period's muskets. Really man, you must engage your brain before putting your hands on the keyboard (then again you don't seem to have a good grasp of history or the law - yes I know you somehow managed to pass the bar *shudder*).

I think the right to life is the most fundamental liberties and why it ought to be protected.
PittPizza
Click to expand...

Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. PP you want to do a little snip-snip, read "right to life", and call it a day. Gods forbid George Washington thought like you, he would have surrendered at Valley Forge because under your criterea the "right to life" of his brave patriots, the right not to be shot or starved to death, trumped their right to freedom from the tyrannical laws of colonial England.
 
[quote name='camoor']So you don't mention the Jefferson quote? A little too "revolutionary" for you buddy? Because that's what the founding fathers were. Revolutionaries. They knew that all power is ultimately derived from the barrel of a gun and they sought to take that power out of the hands of tyrants and put it back in the hands of the people.

Then you dare to presume that the founding fathers were idiots who couldn't figure out that technology evolves over time. Never mind they all had a classical education, learning about military history right up to their time period, never mind they pioneered certain guerilla warfare tactics in the face of a larger and more powerful military force - according to PP they had no idea gunpowder could evolve to be used for anything more efficient then their current time period's muskets. Really man, you must engage your brain before putting your hands on the keyboard (then again you don't seem to have a good grasp of history or the law - yes I know you somehow managed to pass the bar *shudder*).



Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. PP you want to do a little snip-snip, read "right to life", and call it a day. Gods forbid George Washington thought like you, he would have surrendered at Valley Forge because under your criterea the "right to life" of his brave patriots, the right not to be shot or starved to death, trumped their right to freedom from the tyrannical laws of colonial England.[/quote]

Funny you should mention revolutionaries, since they advocate "change." Sound familiar, perhaps like a certain candidate's platform? Hint: he is my favorite candidate. Guess what party advocates zero-slow political change, and protects the status quo? Not mine, yours. I didn't mention the Jefferson quote b/c it's so amorphous it can be tweaked to support any position. Actually so can the Franklin quote, so I guess neither of them had any real substance in support of your position. I guess I'm not sure why you even chose to use them since at best they do nothing for either view, and at worst they weakened your position and bolstered mine. Again, while your catch-phrases sound nice, you best leave em at home when you're going toe-to-toe with me; especially when they do more to support my position than yours.

I feel bad for the feeble minded who feel that ALL power derives from the barrell of a gun. IMO the constituion is a pretty powerful document but since it's not a bullet I guess you disagree. I also don't think the founding fathers would be too happy with your assessment of their wit and knowledge. All power comes from bullets!? Pa-lease.

So judging by your second paragraph, I guess you feel the founding fathers also meant to protect every citizen's right to own a nuke too eh? This is what follows if you carry your premise to it's logical extreme. You sure you still wanna make this argument?


As to your GW comment, he, like all good generals, justified the loss of life for a few to save the lives of many. Surrender would have lost more lives in the grand scheme of things. So yes, he did think like me and yes, we should thank G-d that patriots and military men like him existed and protected our country and the lives it holds.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']So judging by your second paragraph, I guess you feel the founding fathers also meant to protect every citizen's right to own a nuke too eh? This is what follows if you carry your premise to it's logical extreme. You sure you still wanna make this argument?[/quote]

Nope. They were reasonable men and I'm a reasonable man. They didn't see policy issues as black-and-white and neither do I. The people's right to arms should be a reasonable deterent to those seeking to overthrow our democratic government. That means more then knives and less then nukes.

[quote name='pittpizza']As to your GW comment, he, like all good generals, justified the loss of life for a few to save the lives of many. Surrender would have lost more lives in the grand scheme of things. So yes, he did think like me and yes, we should thank G-d that patriots and military men like him existed and protected our country and the lives it holds.[/quote]

How the heck does he think like you? You want to abolish a fundemental right of the people, enacted to preserve our free state, because a scant few cannot handle their guns properly. It's the detriment of the many for the supposed good of a few. You really really really need to get educated man. You've been fed those death by gun statistics so many times but you've never considered how many people a ruthless dictator kills to gain and solidify his power.

Believe it or not, Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin... (the list goes on and on) have raped and pillaged their populace in part because their populace wasn't armed.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I'm saying that the 2nd Amendment (in today's parlence) begins with "Since it is necessary for the police to have guns...."

The explanation for the people being lawfully able to keep guns after it was written is because THE PEOPLE WERE THE POLICE!! Am I getting through to you at all? Militias and the people who made them up (not government officials) had the right to bear arms.


No, my point is that the Amendment was passed so the government couldn't prevent the police forces/militia/people from having guns. It was carried out as intended since militias/police continue to have guns.

Neither is the case: It was and continues to be enforced as intended. The militia/police still do have guns, and this is what the 2nd Amendment protects. Get it now?[/quote]

No. Your reasoning is totally illogical. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

To say the second amendment, back then, supposed all people were police officers, but now we can twist it to only apply to government run police officers is silly. But if that's what you believe, nobody is going to change it.... obviously.

I'll make you a deal. You continue your peaceful life without guns, hoping for the best from those whose jobs is to protect you. And I'll continue to enjoy owning and shooting my guns with my family. And we can both find our own happiness, k?

And when the shit hits the fan, you are welcome to come over and partake of my food storage, and I'll give you a gun to protect your family. But only if you promise to apologize for saying it would never happen and thinking I was a paranoid redneck. ;)


Ah ha, the ol' hillbilly knee-jerk response comes out: "If you don't like our country then get the fuck out!" Finally thrust shows his true colors.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to reach into your standard issue Elitist Liberal name calling can, I was only asking honest questions.

It is never a fools errand to try to improve your country. If examples abound of how to do so, you ought to ask yourself: Who is the true patriot? WHo really loves their country? (1) The one willing to learn what works from other countries to make his nation better, or (2) The one who says "fuck other countries, if you love em so much, why don't you just leave and go live with them?"
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Was that such a hard question to answer? I merely wanted to see why you pick apart our country so much and show nothing but love for others.

Lets play fair thrust, I've answered all your questions decisively. Now you answer mine:
To take the debate in a different direction, surely you don't advocate the right of every person to own a nuke? A tank? A bazooka? A machinegun? A handgrenade? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

I honestly avoided this question simply because I thought it was aimed at Camoor, and last time I answered your posts not directed at me you snapped at me like my mom use to when she was on the rag.

I draw the line on anything that would be considered today as a WMD. There is no reason for a private person to have something so destructive. WMD's, if they must exist, should have to have an elected committee decision to use (ideally).

But the importance of small arms, can not be understated, as Camoor is pointing out - small bands of armed people hiding in mountains are VERY hard to track down and stop by an oppressive government.

Historically, an oppressive government is not interested in mass murder without knowing who they are murdering. Hence unlikely to use WMD's on their own territory. They are only interested in killing the people not willing to submit, they need the rest to carry out their power. If it comes to the point of needing personal weapons, the goal will most likely be a form of bondage or slavery.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I honestly avoided this question simply because I thought it was aimed at Camoor, and last time I answered your posts not directed at me you snapped at me like my mom use to when she was on the rag.

I draw the line on anything that would be considered today as a WMD. There is no reason for a private person to have something so destructive. WMD's, if they must exist, should have to have an elected committee decision to use (ideally).

But the importance of small arms, can not be understated, as Camoor is pointing out - small bands of armed people hiding in mountains are VERY hard to track down and stop by an oppressive government.[/quote]



See but maybe you draw the line at WMDs or anything bigger than a hand weapon, but still what if someone thinks a tank should be guaranteed to him by the second amendment to be consider a well regulated militia and who is to say that person is wrong. There is no way they could have foreseen what weapons would be like when they wrote that, but since it didnt specifically outlaw weapons like canons some individuals can condone having comparable weapons nowadays. But the NRA cares more about "preserving" gun rights than the safety of America.

I am for people owning guns, but there needs to be laws regulating it better. The 1st Amendment, the connerstone of it all is regulated. You can't yell fire in
a crowded theater, you can be sued for libel or defamation of character. I dont understand why people can accept that but are somehow fine with assault weapons and no background check at gunshows. Small limitations benefit everyone instead of no limitations benefiting the few who own these weapons.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']See but maybe you draw the line at WMDs or anything bigger than a hand weapon, but still what if someone thinks a tank should be guaranteed to him by the second amendment to be consider a well regulated militia and who is to say that person is wrong. There is no way they could have foreseen what weapons would be like when they wrote that, but since it didnt specifically outlaw weapons like canons some individuals can condone having comparable weapons nowadays. But the NRA cares more about "preserving" gun rights than the safety of America.

I am for people owning guns, but there needs to be laws regulating it better. The 1st Amendment, the connerstone of it all is regulated. You can't yell fire in
a crowded theater, you can be sued for libel or defamation of character. I dont understand why people can accept that but are somehow fine with assault weapons and no background check at gunshows. Small limitations benefit everyone instead of no limitations benefiting the few who own these weapons.[/QUOTE]

You make good points. I am not anti-regulation, for the record. I have no problem with background checks. I have no problem with even requiring a class before your first purchase (like a drivers license).

And I could be wrong, but it seems last time I bought a gun at a gun show they did run a background check. They took all my info, called some number, and it took like 20 minutes.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You make good points. I am not anti-regulation, for the record. I have no problem with background checks. I have no problem with even requiring a class before your first purchase (like a drivers license).

And I could be wrong, but it seems last time I bought a gun at a gun show they did run a background check. They took all my info, called some number, and it took like 20 minutes.[/quote]

dont usually like using Wiki as a source, but its quicker

United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform checks prior to transferring a firearm, but there is an exemption for private sales by individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales. Unlicensed private sellers are permitted by law to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows, or at private locations, in 24 states (as of 1998)
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']dont usually like using Wiki as a source, but its quicker

United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform checks prior to transferring a firearm, but there is an exemption for private sales by individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales. Unlicensed private sellers are permitted by law to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows, or at private locations, in 24 states (as of 1998)[/QUOTE]

That would explain it then. Most of the booths at gun shows are run by gun shops, so they would have to do background checks.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nope. They were reasonable men and I'm a reasonable man. They didn't see policy issues as black-and-white and neither do I. The people's right to arms should be a reasonable deterent to those seeking to overthrow our democratic government. That means more then knives and less then nukes.

How the heck does he think like you? You want to abolish a fundemental right of the people, enacted to preserve our free state, because a scant few cannot handle their guns properly. It's the detriment of the many for the supposed good of a few. You really really really need to get educated man. You've been fed those death by gun statistics so many times but you've never considered how many people a ruthless dictator kills to gain and solidify his power.

Believe it or not, Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin... (the list goes on and on) have raped and pillaged their populace in part because their populace wasn't armed.[/QUOTE]

At least you cede some regulation in your first paragraph.

Your second demonstrates you still don't get my point because you think gun ownership is "a fundamental right of the people." Allow me to make the same point about something you're not so biased about: washing cars.

Suppose there was an amendment saying "Since we are experiencing a horrible drought, the people cannot wash thier cars on Mondays Wednesdays or Fridays." Now if the horrible drought stopped, so would the restriction on washing cars. The same holds true for "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." If that clause ends, then so would the restriction on gun bans. You don't have to agree with the conclusion or the policy; I'm just trying to show you how I arrived at the conclusion using the actual words of the Amendment. Now do you understand?

I need to get educated? Reall? Do I now? I guess you're right. Eh, I always liked school anyway. Thanks for the input. ;) I'll apply to get back into school tomorrow. :bouncy:

As to your Pol Pot, Stalin, and Idi Amin, they had authoritarian totalitarian control. It had nothing to do with the citizenry owning guns, and everything to do with the structure and strength of the government. We have something they don't (well, we did before Bush) CHECKS AND MOTHAfuckING BALANCES!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']At least you cede some regulation in your first paragraph.

Your second demonstrates you still don't get my point because you think gun ownership is "a fundamental right of the people." Allow me to make the same point about something you're not so biased about: washing cars.

Suppose there was an amendment saying "Since we are experiencing a horrible drought, the people cannot wash thier cars on Mondays Wednesdays or Fridays." Now if the horrible drought stopped, so would the restriction on washing cars. The same holds true for "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." If that clause ends, then so would the restriction on gun bans. You don't have to agree with the conclusion or the policy; I'm just trying to show you how I arrived at the conclusion using the actual words of the Amendment. Now do you understand?

I need to get educated? Reall? Do I now? I guess you're right. Eh, I always liked school anyway. Thanks for the input. ;) I'll apply to get back into school tomorrow. :bouncy:

As to your Pol Pot, Stalin, and Idi Amin, they had authoritarian totalitarian control. It had nothing to do with the citizenry owning guns, and everything to do with the structure and strength of the government. We have something they don't (well, we did before Bush) CHECKS AND MOTHAfuckING BALANCES!
 
I see your point Camoor and agree to an extent, but the problem persists: where do you draw the line? You can't allow every citizen to own a tank, but at the same time your point holds: the better armed the citizenry, the stronger the dissuasion of oppression.

So clearly (like most every topic mentioned in the vs. thread) a balance needs to be struck. No matter what, even with our current state of "armedness" we don't stand a chance to against the U.S. military. Sure, we can hole up in forests and fight back using guerilla tactics, but we could do this with only rifles and shotguns too.

I just don't think, given the current state of the nation, the people, and the government, it makes sense to have the level of armedness that we're at. IMO too many lives are lost for too little benefit so I view the balance as being a bit off in favor of over-armedness.

Moreover, and I can't take credit for this point since the Ikohn raised it before me: complete and total cessation of work and society by the populace would be as effective a deterrent to oppression than violence. Ghandi would agree. If the public simply halted all activity, and effectively blockaded commerce and the functioning of society (civil disobedience) the oppressive government would have no choice but to give in. In theory anyway, it is an interesting point.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

My personal view is that "arms" ought to mean rifles and that's it (for private citizens). Hell I wouldn't even mind it if well regulated militias (David Koresh, Mormans, lol) [/quote]
Did you mean Mormons? Since when do they have a militia? Since when do they want to? They haven't had anything of the sort since the 1860's.

Rifles and shotguns would still be avail for people to protect themselves with. But they're not easily concealed and can't be used for a VT type massacre.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused by your rifle thing. You do realize that most rifles now are semi-automatic and can easily be modded to have high capacity magazines? Or are you trying to refer to single-shot bolt action rifles only?

My main concern with your suggestion about only making rifles legal to have, is that there are already every other type of gun out there, in droves. All you are doing is punishing the law abiding citizens. Without a way to ensure nothing but rifles get made from now on, and you come up with a great plan (like offering big $) to get everyone to turn in all other guns -I don't see it working. Untill you can ensure me that statistically, a gun crime will almost always be performed with a bolt-action rifle, then I wouldn't agree to only have a bolt-action rifle.

So clearly (like most every topic mentioned in the vs. thread) a balance needs to be struck. No matter what, even with our current state of "armedness" we don't stand a chance to against the U.S. military. Sure, we can hole up in forests and fight back using guerilla tactics, but we could do this with only rifles and shotguns too.
Click to expand...

I'm really glad you brought up balance, because that's the core of this debate.

Insurance against a government out of control is only one scenario. No, we could not stand against the US military... But if things got bad enough, and lawlessness broke out that police couldn't, for whatever reason control, what then? Hide with your doors locked and pray to every god you can think of?

And what about simple crimes like hold ups or muggings? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens have access to the weaponry common criminals are likely to have?

See, your tank talk doesn't work. The reason is criminals couldn't afford a tank. A disgruntled student isn't going to save up for a tank so he can do VT. The reason it's important that all small arms are legal (well, most) is that any weapon that can be found cheap on the streets by poor thugs and street vermin, should also be legal for law abiding citizens. That's why it's not that important that expensive stuff like shoulder mounted stinger missles are legal, because the chances of someone holding up a 7-11 with anti-aircraft weaponry is non-existent.

I will definitely take you up on your bomb shelter offer there Thrust, and I will let you say "I told you so!" too. Moreover, I will admit that "I was wrong, and you were right, without guns a dictator really did take over our country."
Click to expand...
Sounds good.

Still, I wouldn't hold your breath, it hasn't happned in the VAST MAJORITY of other modern western democracies that don't allow their citizens to constantly murder each other with guns.
Click to expand...
Well then, if you are going to lean on statistics to define your reality so heavily, you really shouldn't believe in the dangers and doomsday of global warming, because statistically, in "the VAST MAJORITY" of eons of time, this planet has been through hell and back and has always managed to survive and work it out just fine. ;)
 
Thrust I can only assume your last post was in response to mine, since you and Camoor seem to be on the same page for the most part.

I'd like to direct your attention to post #9 in your sorry excuse for a thread called "The Ideal Candidate."

I've proven all my points about gun control and the need for environmental reform conclusively, yet you obviously don't listen to reason. Maybe you're too dumb, or too partisan to be open to reason and differing views so from here (well, since post #9 really) on out you're the sole inhabitant of my ignore list. I'm not telling you to brag about it, just to keep you from wasting your time responding to me.

"Don't talk to me, we'll get along just fine." -NoFX.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Thrust I can only assume your last post was in response to mine, since you and Camoor seem to be on the same page for the most part.

I'd like to direct your attention to post #9 in your sorry excuse for a thread called "The Ideal Candidate."

I've proven all my points about gun control and the need for environmental reform conclusively, yet you obviously don't listen to reason. Maybe you're too dumb, or too partisan to be open to reason and differing views so from here (well, since post #9 really) on out you're the sole inhabitant of my ignore list. I'm not telling you to brag about it, just to keep you from wasting your time responding to me.

"Don't talk to me, we'll get along just fine." -NoFX.[/QUOTE]

Awesome.

Yeah that post was directed at you, was your first hint that I quoted you through the whole thing?

And none of it was personal attacks, it was simply a discussion. I thought we were sharing ideas and points of view, is that not what we were doing? You are the one that resorts to name calling and personal attacks, regularly.

Well, let everyone else take note here. I have never made a personal attack on pittpizza, or called him playground names. His posts, especially to me, are often filled with personal attacks like you see above. Yet he puts me on ignore. Anyone else see an unstable personality blossoming?

Poor pizza, the only thing you have "conclusively" done is continue to ignore my honest, straight forward questions in favor of name calling and now emotional and illogical behavior.

And to think of all the time I've wasted thoughtfully responding to your questions.

Hypocrisy finally has a new watermark. It is indeed unfortunate you had to finally let your childish irrational side best you, as I enjoyed our conversations quite a bit, and I do respect what you say and have learned from it.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I see your point Camoor and agree to an extent, but the problem persists: where do you draw the line? You can't allow every citizen to own a tank, but at the same time your point holds: the better armed the citizenry, the stronger the dissuasion of oppression.

So clearly (like most every topic mentioned in the vs. thread) a balance needs to be struck. No matter what, even with our current state of "armedness" we don't stand a chance to against the U.S. military. Sure, we can hole up in forests and fight back using guerilla tactics, but we could do this with only rifles and shotguns too.

I just don't think, given the current state of the nation, the people, and the government, it makes sense to have the level of armedness that we're at. IMO too many lives are lost for too little benefit so I view the balance as being a bit off in favor of over-armedness.

Moreover, and I can't take credit for this point since the Ikohn raised it before me: complete and total cessation of work and society by the populace would be as effective a deterrent to oppression than violence. Ghandi would agree. If the public simply halted all activity, and effectively blockaded commerce and the functioning of society (civil disobedience) the oppressive government would have no choice but to give in. In theory anyway, it is an interesting point.[/quote]

If it's a question of where we draw the line on what "arms" constitute, then we're probably closer on this issue then I originally thought.

Even though I like the concept, personally I don't believe civil disobedience works with a hard-line dictatorship/empire. India was probably on the path to independence with or without Ghandi. I respect what they are trying to do, but look at Tibet for evidence of how effective non-violent protest is in the current world. It's only when the shops start getting smashed that they receieved any attention.

FWIW PP I think it's silly that you ignored thrust, IMO he's a good poster.
 
[quote name='camoor']

FWIW PP I think it's silly that you ignored thrust, IMO he's a good poster.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if you caught it, but in another thread he basically said he was doing so out of the misunderstanding that I am a Michael Savage supporter and fan.

I sometimes do let myself get carried away and become a bit assholish, I know. And for that I apologize to all. But I try very very hard to never make personal attacks, call names, or make generalizations about posters here.

Even though pitt often does a lot of that, I still like him and enjoy reading his posts.
 
Dude, my old buddy just showed me 5 guns he has bought and it scares me.

One had a bayonette, one a grenade launcher attachment, and one a laser site.

I don't think it should be legal for a person like that to have these kinds of weapons.
 
[quote name='HuppSav']Dude, my old buddy just showed me 5 guns he has bought and it scares me.

One had a bayonette, one a grenade launcher attachment, and one a laser site.

I don't think it should be legal for a person like that to have these kinds of weapons.[/QUOTE]

How many grenades does he have for the grenade launcher?
 
[quote name='HuppSav']Dude, my old buddy just showed me 5 guns he has bought and it scares me.

One had a bayonette, one a grenade launcher attachment, and one a laser site.

I don't think it should be legal for a person like that to have these kinds of weapons.[/quote]

Too much GTA ;)
 
[quote name='HuppSav']

I don't think it should be legal for a person like that to have these kinds of weapons.[/quote]

It scares me too man! More often than not, the people who actually DO collect these kinds of weapons are the exact ones that should not be allowed to own them. Passive people who pose no threat to society usually have no interest in being so heavily armed.

Technically, none of these would be considered a "WMD" since at most they could only kill what 50-100 people? Thats why the bar has to be set lower IMO.

Lives are more important than this nut's right to own a grenade launcher.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']How many grenades does he have for the grenade launcher?[/quote]
I don't know, I don't really hang out with this guy anymore, but he has 3 or 4 other guns he didn't show me. He has at least 2 semi autos, and that long ass bayonette really freaked me out.
 
[quote name='HuppSav']I don't know, I don't really hang out with this guy anymore, but he has 3 or 4 other guns he didn't show me. He has at least 2 semi autos, and that long ass bayonette really freaked me out.[/QUOTE]

Well, a bayonet is just a knife attached to the end of a gun. It isn't any more dangerous than a steak knife attached to a stick.

Grenade launchers are not illegal because they are just tubes. But grenades are illegal to own, and I would wager you friend had no grenades.

Laser sighting? You can attach a $5 pen laser to any gun, that doesn't make it more dangerous or scary.

I'm just not really sure why these items frightened you.
 
[quote name='HuppSav']Dude, my old buddy just showed me 5 guns he has bought and it scares me.

One had a bayonette, one a grenade launcher attachment, and one a laser site.

I don't think it should be legal for a person like that to have these kinds of weapons.[/quote]

A bayonette just turns a gun into a spear.

A laser site just improves aim.

How are those scary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top