Topic: Gun Control (Read 33696 times)

TheJudge · « **Reply #50 on:** February 10, 2006, 10:02:55 AM »

Quote from: Stratofortress

The .50 cal sniper rifle is akin to the Dodge Viper in this way. Both can kill, too.

Yes both can kill, but people don't think "Man I wanna kill that fucker! If only I could get my hands on a viper so I could run him over!"

Stratofortress · « **Reply #51 on:** February 10, 2006, 10:42:34 AM »

I would like to kill someone with a Viper. A pink one.
Or a lead snorkel. A pink lead snorkel.

The kill thing was an afterthought. I should have had my editor look over that before I posted.

Wait, I don't have an editor. Anyone know of an out of work editor willing to work for stale donuts?

xolik · « **Reply #52 on:** February 10, 2006, 12:16:49 PM »

Quote from: Stratofortress

Why do people need sports cars with 510 horsepower engines? (The Dodge Viper, for example.)

Stratofortress · « **Reply #53 on:** February 10, 2006, 01:04:43 PM »

I'm about $80,000 short. (Short being the operative word.)

LuciferSam · « **Reply #54 on:** February 10, 2006, 07:54:14 PM »

Quote from: xpgeek

I stand by my opinion about AK-47's and .50 caliber sniper rifles tho. Those types of guns were not designed for civilians, never intended for civilians, and shouldn't be owned by civilians.

Just wanted to point out here that both guns have civilian applications. The .50 calibur 'sniper' rifle series was spawned out of a very popular hunting rifle, and the Kalashnikov is perfect for civilians who want to get involved with competition shooting, security work, etc. It fires better than most commercial rifles. I own one, love it.

BizB · « **Reply #55 on:** February 10, 2006, 09:18:36 PM »

Two Words: Red Dawn.

Stratofortress · « **Reply #56 on:** February 11, 2006, 02:50:19 PM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

Just wanted to point out here that both guns have civilian applications. The .50 calibur 'sniper' rifle series was spawned out of a very popular hunting rifle, and the Kalashnikov is perfect for civilians who want to get involved with competition shooting, security work, etc. It fires better than most commercial rifles. I own one, love it.

Just thought I'd add some more info regarding the .50 cal and the Kalashnikov. Here's a pic of a Barrett .50 rifle.

And a link to the company's website. http://www.barrettrifles.com/

And some Kalashnikov info:

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/

taste_of_flames · « **Reply #57 on:** May 14, 2006, 10:35:50 PM »

Granted, this topic has gone a bit arry, but here is my thoughts on the matter.

First: The talk about the constitutionally protected right to bear arms (the second amendment) is flawed. Most people miss an opperative phrase within their reading. The second amendment specifically states that citizens are allowed to keep firearms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. Since we no longer have a militia firearms are not really constitutionaly protected.

Second: I have no objections to people owning guns, hell i love guns (i like blades better, but they don't go boom). So, personally, i would be sad to see guns go.

Third: Gun control should deffinately be regulated by the states, or even counties (or parishes). My reasoning behind this is as follows: someone in NYC does not need a rifle. In a big city, most firearms are bought for self protection; therefore, handguns for carrying on your person and perhaps a shotgun behind the door.

Fourth: Assault weapons should never be sold to civillians. They have a place where you can use those, and they are running low on participants (the military). To quote a former four star General "If you want to own a fully automatic weapon, i have a uniform for you." (i don't know if that is the exact quote, it was said by General Clark on Real Time with Bill Mahrer about 3 months after the ban ended).

Fifth: Collectors of guns should have every right to collect them, just like everybody else. However, due to an increased danger level with a firearms collection, the purchase of guns above a set amount should require a liscence claiming the purchases for the purpose of collecting (i know the inefective nature of this, but every little bit helps).

Sixth: Guns do serve a purpose. I personally don't hunt, but I do enjoy the food obtained through hunting. Granted, hunting can be done by a bow, but guns are just more effective. And, as an american, efficency is king (aside from the bureaucracy).

If i think of anyhting elsei ll post it, but those are my arguments in the way of gun control

BizB · « **Reply #58 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:40:54 AM »

Shall I shoot holes in your statements, or would you rather walk around believing that they're well formed and thoroughly thought out for a while longer?

ivan · « **Reply #59 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:38:20 PM »

Quote from: taste_of_flames

Granted, this topic has gone a bit arry

Arry?

ARRY?

Quote from: taste_of_flames

If i think of anyhting elsei ll post it

No. Please, it's ok. We're fine.

Min · « **Reply #60 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:10:45 PM »

Quote from: BizB

Shall I shoot holes in your statements, or would you rather walk around believing that they're well formed and thoroughly thought out for a while longer?

SHOOT HOLES, AHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

taste_of_flames · « **Reply #61 on:** May 15, 2006, 03:10:18 PM »

By all means, take me to task. Criticism is what debate is all about.

BizB · « **Reply #62 on:** May 15, 2006, 03:39:00 PM »

Quote from: taste_of_flames

First: The talk about the constitutionally protected right to bear arms (the second amendment) is flawed. Most people miss an opperative phrase within their reading. The second amendment specifically states that citizens are allowed to keep firearms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. Since we no longer have a militia firearms are not really constitutionaly protected.

Clearly, you need to read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton made it perfectly clear that the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was not just that of maintaining a regulated malitia, but, beyond that, the ability to form such a militia by gathering the armed citizenry.

Quote

Second: I have no objections to people owning guns, hell i love guns (i like blades better, but they don't go boom). So, personally, i would be sad to see guns go.

Non sequitur.

Quote

Third: Gun control should deffinately be regulated by the states, or even counties (or parishes). My reasoning behind this is as follows: someone in NYC does not need a rifle. In a big city, most firearms are bought for self protection; therefore, handguns for carrying on your person and perhaps a shotgun behind the door.

Someone in NYC doesn't have the right to travel outside of city limits and discharge a rifle? Someone within the city limits need be reduced to an inaccurate weapon with very short range? Please provide evidence supporting your argument that "In a big city, most firearms are bought for self protection". Further, demonstrate how a shotgun behind the door is any less deadly than a rifle at a range appropriate for the weapon.

Quote

Fourth: Assault weapons should never be sold to civillians. They have a place where you can use those, and they are running low on participants (the military). To quote a former four star General "If you want to own a fully automatic weapon, i have a uniform for you." (i don't know if that is the exact quote, it was said by General Clark on Real Time with Bill Mahrer about 3 months after the ban ended).

Why shouldn't assult weapons be available to the general public? Why would you mandate that we be any less armed than the general public of such countries as Iraq and Iran? Quoting a general who is clearly tasked with recruitment (Albeit indirectly) doesn't help your argument.

Quote

Fifth: Collectors of guns should have every right to collect them, just like everybody else. However, due to an increased danger level with a firearms collection, the purchase of guns above a set amount should require a liscence claiming the purchases for the purpose of collecting (i know the inefective nature of this, but every little bit helps).

Collectors? Can collectors have more than one gun? Can they have more than 100? Can collectors own specialty weapons like fully automatic weapons? How about semi-automatic? Is there a size limit to the gun that a collector may own? What, exactly, makes one a "Gun collector"? How would you police/enforce such a law as licensing gun collectors, but not John Doe citizen?

Quote

Sixth: Guns do serve a purpose. I personally don't hunt, but I do enjoy the food obtained through hunting. Granted, hunting can be done by a bow, but guns are just more effective. And, as an american, efficency is king (aside from the bureaucracy).

You're right. Guns do serve a purpose. The purpose is to put holes in those things that you point them at. The purpose of a gun is no more "hunting" than the purpose of the military is "policing". I don't own a gun. I won't own a gun until such a time as there are no children in my home. I have, however, put my son through the Eddie Eagle program (when he was much younger) and I intend to do the same for my daughter.

Guns are good for our society. Don't be a nanzy panzy.

Denny Crane.

taste_of_flames · « **Reply #63 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:35:42 PM »

If i may pose a few questions...
How am I being a "Nanzy Panzy?" Just out of curiosity.
Does the background intentions as put forth by a Founding Father change the wording within the constitution? And before you jump on this, i know my interpertation of the second amendment is largely drawn from an implication that may or may not be there. Also, I am well aware that virtually nothing in the Constitution is explicitly stated.

Now, if I may defend my thoughts briefly.
My second statement is not non sequitur (though i can see how you would view as such). It was meant to stave off thoughts that I am some anti-gun nut.
I belive that assault weapons should not be allowed to the general public because they serve no other purpose than killing another human being. I can imagine that someone will say something about collectors and asking why they should not be allowed. I won't address this simply because i cannot arrive at a coherent reasoning.
Also, I mentioned the in-effective nature of the licensing idea. I now it is one of the more difficult things to enforce, but can be done so through a national database (I am aware that this is not exactly economical, but I'm an idealist). Also, this would provide another hoop for someone to jump through and would work to weed out a small percentage of potential criminals. Granted this will do nothing to detur their purchase of guns on the "streets."
I have no statistics of anykind that can back up my claim that most guns in a big city are bought for protection. I can, however, walk you through my thought process. (Beware the convluted wording, I can rephrase it if you wish). Rifles have little practical use within a city due to laws and close quarters. This then leaves the road open for the purchase of handguns, which serve little purpose other than protection to the common person.
Now, i appologize for bringing this topic back up, it is, after all, months old. Also, my post was just meant to be a few thoughts, though it became argumentative out of habit.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #64 on:** May 15, 2006, 04:53:10 PM »

Quote from: taste_of_flames

Does the background intentions as put forth by a Founding Father change the wording within the constitution? And before you jump on this, i know my interpertation of the second amendment is largely drawn from an implication that may or may not be there. Also, I am well aware that virtually nothing in the Constitution is explicitly stated.

Sometimes you have to put the wording of the Constitution in the context in which it was written.

ivan · « **Reply #65 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:18:25 PM »

Quote from: taste_of_flames

Also, I am well aware that virtually nothing in the Constitution is explicitly stated.

Bullshit. The articles of the Constitution state things quite explicitly. It's what they don't state that gives rise to debate.

ivan · « **Reply #66 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:27:49 PM »

Quote from: taste_of_flames

I belive that assault weapons should not be allowed to the general public because they serve no other purpose than killing another human being.

As opposed to those other guns that can be used as planters and back-scratchers.

Quote from: taste_of_flames

This then leaves the road open for the purchase of handguns, which serve little purpose other than protection to the common person.

In other words, handguns also "serve no other purpose than killing another human being". Unless you're protecting yourself against stray dogs and pigeons.

Quote from: taste_of_flames

I won't address this simply because i cannot arrive at a coherent reasoning.

Ha-ha! Hasn't stopped you before!

BizB · « **Reply #67 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:19:26 PM »

My work here is done.

xolik · « **Reply #68 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:49:04 PM »

Quote from: taste_of_flames

I belive that assault weapons should not be allowed to the general public because they serve no other purpose than killing another human being.

Bullshit. When Bigfoot comes after my stamp collection, I'll be ready!

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #69 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:21:07 AM »

Amendment II - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (Part One), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (Part Two), shall not be infringed.

Simple.

TheJudge · « **Reply #70 on:** May 16, 2006, 06:47:37 AM »

Why the hell don't they just define "arms" and solve 90% of the debates once and for all? It wouldn't be an infringment, it would simply be a clarification. You would still have the right to bear arms, except we would know what that actually means.

jeee · « **Reply #71 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:34:57 AM »

In 1791 Afro-americans were enslaved and women had no right to vote. Things change.

Min · « **Reply #72 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:48:43 AM »

And amendments were made to the constitution because enough people agreed that those things should change.

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #73 on:** May 16, 2006, 07:02:07 PM »

I don't own a gun, but i do plan on owning at least one, and if I have children, i plan on teaching them how to shoot, and proper respect for the weapon. It is my belief that any piece of weaponry that does not run the risk of excessive personal or property damage through indiscriminate means (hand grenades, mines, or any other kind of explosive/incendiary device not used for construction/demolitions purposes, civilian or otherwise, including, but not limited to napalm, thermite anti-material charges, and nuclear weapons), should be legal to own by people who have not been charged with a felony. The second amendment was established as a means to protect our first amendment rights, as well as keep another check or balance (depending on how you look at it) for our government. Those who drafted the bill of rights and the constitution did so with the knowledge, or hopes, that americans, both then and now, would rise up against an opressive or even tyrannical government. An armed society is a polite society, that's a fact.

Before anyone starts questioning me on the automatic weapons front, let me put it this way:

you're some hooligan looking to rob somebody's house, what would deter you more, the police and jail time, or the thought that there might be someone with a 12 gauge semiautomatic or automatic shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot or self-rifiling slugs, Or perhaps a larger-calibur, high capacity assault weapon?

Sorry, but the whole big-gun-in-your-face thing would scare me a hell of a lot more than the cops.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #74 on:** May 16, 2006, 11:17:47 PM »

Quote from: TerrorDronze

Sorry, but the whole big-gun-in-your-face thing would scare me a hell of a lot more than the cops.

Especially since the cops aren't as likely to shoot you.

Of course, you could be arrested here for defending property with lethal force. It only works if you are defending your own or someone else. (And the use of force is appropriate.)

Doh!

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Gun Control (Read 33696 times)

ivan

ivan

ivan