|
Post by Californian on Jul 10, 2008 7:33:04 GMT -6
And the next time we have a school shooting, I am going to remind you of your post. Pehaps you forgot about Virginia Tech and Columbine. Feel free. Constitutional rights also have pitfalls. How many criminals have gone free because their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights were violated and it was impossible to prosecute them?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 10, 2008 9:35:58 GMT -6
seems pretty straightforward. since your ideas of personal ownership and militia are now moot, what is your opinion here? why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? need?? I'm sorry I didn't realize you were new to this country. welcome. you see, in this country you can own a legal object simply because you want to, there is no need requirement nor justification or explanation. have a pleasant stay
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 10, 2008 9:37:57 GMT -6
seems pretty straightforward. since your ideas of personal ownership and militia are now moot, what is your opinion here? If you do not accept that a document written 232 years ago needs to be changed to reflect society, then you probably are going to tell me slavery is ok too. then do away with the whole thing altogether. a document that changes "whenever" to fit "whatever" is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 10, 2008 9:40:11 GMT -6
You have it backwards. It's precisely because the military and the central government are so powerful that the citizens need to arm themselves. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. No there isn't. If there's a military coup, or a complete breakdown of law enforcement, I'm going to be first in line for one of those babies. Why would any law abiding citizen have to fear the government to the point where they considered guns as the only realistic alternative. you got me here. I am completely speechless. how does one explain the blindly obvious??
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 10, 2008 9:46:33 GMT -6
Fortunately, all your ideas have been rendered unconstitutional by Mr. Heller. I couldn't be gladder about it. Pehaps you forgot about Virginia Tech and Columbine. perhaps you forgot that the virginia tech students and both schools teachers/adults were forbidden to defend themselves by the schools. Heller now says they can't do that. maybe next time the students/faculty/anybody will not wait to be killed huddling in a corner. you're OK with that, right? certainly you'd rather see these people live than die, right? you're not that messed up, right?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 10, 2008 15:04:10 GMT -6
Why would any law abiding citizen have to fear the government to the point where they considered guns as the only realistic alternative. you got me here. I am completely speechless. how does one explain the blindly obvious?? : : Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 21:26:45 GMT -6
No there isn't. If there's a military coup, or a complete breakdown of law enforcement, I'm going to be first in line for one of those babies. Assault rifles are for wussies. Aimed fire is always more effective and accurate than the assault rifle crowd would like to admit. Ah, yes. It takes sheer toughness and courage to shoot an unarmed person from 100 yards away with a laser guided scope.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 21:33:09 GMT -6
Just like the one used in the DC sniper attacks It wasn't the rifle that killed people, Kings. So did the killers sprinkle fairy dust to create the bloodbath? Or, in case you forgotten, did they use high powered rifles to mow down defenseless and unarmed people. These are the kind of weapons I am refering to. Again my question is why does a lawful citizen need a weapon like an Uzi?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 21:51:04 GMT -6
Nope, and never will be, as long as people own guns. Correct. But we had martial law in Los Angeles back in the 1990s, because the police aren't always up to the job. You've got to be kidding me. Do you actually trust the U.S. government? OMG. A truly free people can never trust its freedom to those who would take it away in a New York minute. Because those with the guns make the rules, Kings. Because when the military and police have all the firearms, the rule of law no longer exists. If there is a military coup, what do you think you will do against an entire army? There won't be one, simply because the majority of Americans own firearms. Not even the U.S. military can hold up against 150 million determined, armed citizens, and the military knows it.[/quote I think you may be a little paranoid. For the government to take away your personal freedom, you would have to have broken a law. Perhaps you are afraid that men in black suits will storm your house in a NY minute. Even if you have a gun, you would be no match for the many more guns pointed at you. In your point about making the rules, you again divorce reality. If you have a gun, give me a rule that you made and others followed. If law and order breaks down, what do you think you will honestly do with your gun, kill an angry lynch mob? Again you would be no match for the many more guns pointed at you. I can also see how the 150 million lawful rifles and pistols will be a fair fight against a fanatical - I used the word because it applies- well-trained army with M-16, rocket launchers and Sherman tanks. Not to mention chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. But do you really believe that we have not had a coup because you own a gun? Come on man. Tell me, did having a gun prevent the Civil War or merely increase the number of KIA?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 21:54:31 GMT -6
I said the people should be able to own firearms. However, why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? It's not about need. It's about what people like. One model of the new Corvette has 605 horsepower. Does anybody need that?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 21:59:58 GMT -6
why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? It's not about needs. It's about rights. If someone is law-abiding, there's no problem with that person having an automatic weapon. But society hasn't changed regarding firearms, and neither has the need to keep the government in check. quote] Oh, please provide your plan for keeping the gov in check and I will define it as 'extremist' and possibly 'terrorist' If the people think they can control gov with by using guns, tell me what law and order there is?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 22:03:19 GMT -6
Just like the one used in the DC sniper attacks No, 'fraid not. The DC sniper used, as I recall, a Ruger mini-14. A Remington 700 is a five-shot bolt action weapon. Perhaps you didnt read my post. I didn't name the gun specifically, and I think I recall using the word 'like'.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 22:06:39 GMT -6
And the next time we have a school shooting, I am going to remind you of your post. Pehaps you forgot about Virginia Tech and Columbine. Feel free. Constitutional rights also have pitfalls. How many criminals have gone free because their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights were violated and it was impossible to prosecute them? Tell that one to a community after we read about another shooting. Uh Constitutional rights have pitfalls...all because somebody mixed a vendetta with an assault rifle.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 22:21:02 GMT -6
why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? need?? I'm sorry I didn't realize you were new to this country. welcome. you see, in this country you can own a legal object simply because you want to, there is no need requirement nor justification or explanation. have a pleasant stay First, I was born in the USA and I strongly resent your remarks. Secondly, you probably should check the applicable law or hire competant counsel to explain it to you. There are limitations on who can own a gun and the type of gun that can be owned. For example, a person on parole is not allowed to own a gun. Just like a person is not allowed to own an M-16. Your point of no requirement nor justificaion or explanation is off base. Perhaps you forgot about the tiny matter of required background checks. Perhaps you also forgotten about people who are now facing criminal prosecution for buying a gun for a criminal. My point is that, contrary to your idea, you cannot own a gun without regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Jul 10, 2008 22:47:09 GMT -6
You CAN own a fully automatic weapon if you buy a tax stamp. A friend of mine had several. They were in his home, locked in a gun cabinet and ammo was stored separately in the cabinet. Also under lock and key and he did not have kids.
His at home protection was a shotgun...Not the stuff in that cabinet.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 10, 2008 22:51:53 GMT -6
You CAN own a fully automatic weapon if you buy a tax stamp. A friend of mine had several. They were in his home, locked in a gun cabinet and ammo was stored separately in the cabinet. Also under lock and key and he did not have kids. His at home protection was a shotgun...Not the stuff in that cabinet. That is not very comforting to me knowing that anyone can own a fully automatic weapon with a tax stamp
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 11, 2008 6:50:09 GMT -6
Or, in case you forgotten, did they use high powered rifles to mow down defenseless and unarmed people. If you're referring to the DC snipers, the weapon they used wasn't even "high-powered." A medium power centerfire cartridge, the .223 Remington, was used. Who had an Uzi? Fully automatic weapons are quite rare in the U.S., and a special tax stamp is needed to own them. And yet again, we're not talking about need. You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 11, 2008 10:27:02 GMT -6
need?? I'm sorry I didn't realize you were new to this country. welcome. you see, in this country you can own a legal object simply because you want to, there is no need requirement nor justification or explanation. have a pleasant stay First, I was born in the USA and I strongly resent your remarks. Secondly, you probably should check the applicable law or hire competant counsel to explain it to you. There are limitations on who can own a gun and the type of gun that can be owned. For example, a person on parole is not allowed to own a gun. Just like a person is not allowed to own an M-16. Your point of no requirement nor justificaion or explanation is off base. Perhaps you forgot about the tiny matter of required background checks. Perhaps you also forgotten about people who are now facing criminal prosecution for buying a gun for a criminal. My point is that, contrary to your idea, you cannot own a gun without regulations. perhaps you should hire a competant teacher to explain reading comprehension to you. I am fully aware of restrictions and regulation, I'm in the restriction and regulation business. I said "legal object". if you are a restricted person then that firearm is NOT a "legal object" now is it?? this is why I asked you earlier about the infringement clause in the second amendment, because we do have sensible infringements in place, i.e. felons, illegals, dopers ect., and I agree with them. a background check, does NOT require a "need", a background check does NOT require an explanation of why I want said firearm. and you're understanding or acceptance of my reasons for owning or wanting such is completely unecessary and irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 11, 2008 10:30:56 GMT -6
Constitutional rights also have pitfalls. How many criminals have gone free because their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights were violated and it was impossible to prosecute them? Be happy to. Do you have a problem with that?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 11, 2008 10:30:59 GMT -6
You CAN own a fully automatic weapon if you buy a tax stamp. A friend of mine had several. They were in his home, locked in a gun cabinet and ammo was stored separately in the cabinet. Also under lock and key and he did not have kids. His at home protection was a shotgun...Not the stuff in that cabinet. That is not very comforting to me knowing that anyone can own a fully automatic weapon with a tax stamp and yet it appears you didn't know this. they've been legal since their invention, lately with some restriction. so since it appears that you didn't know this, and you can't point to a single full automatic school, mall, public shooting, why are you now discomforted? the people who own these obviously are not the problem
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 11, 2008 10:32:06 GMT -6
No, 'fraid not. The DC sniper used, as I recall, a Ruger mini-14. A Remington 700 is a five-shot bolt action weapon. Perhaps you didnt read my post. I didn't name the gun specifically, and I think I recall using the word 'like'. A five shot, bolt action rifle is not one "like" the one used in the attacks. Your language skills need work.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 11, 2008 10:38:44 GMT -6
I said the people should be able to own firearms. However, why does a law abiding person need a weapon that shoots 90+ rounds a minute? It's not about need. It's about what people like. One model of the new Corvette has 605 horsepower. Does anybody need that? unbelievable you can't possibly believe guns and cars are different, other than cars kill more people. cars: approx. 42,000 deaths per year guns: approx 9,500 unless you, personally, are willing to put the exact same restrictions and regulations on cars that we have for guns then you are not really interested in preventing death. that would then put you in the camp of "some deaths are tragic"(guns) and "some deaths are unfortunate but the price of progress"(cars) depending entirely on the inconvenience to you
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 11, 2008 10:43:33 GMT -6
Feel free. Constitutional rights also have pitfalls. How many criminals have gone free because their Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights were violated and it was impossible to prosecute them? Tell that one to a community after we read about another shooting. Uh Constitutional rights have pitfalls...all because somebody mixed a vendetta with an assault rifle. since you didn't answer my previous question on this, let's try again. how would you tell the families of the Virginia Tech shooting vicitms that although we can't protect you, we can't allow you to protect yourselves either. ?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jul 11, 2008 19:19:26 GMT -6
cars: approx. 42,000 deaths per year guns: approx 9,500 unless you, personally, are willing to put the exact same restrictions and regulations on cars that we have for guns then you are not really interested in preventing death. that would then put you in the camp of "some deaths are tragic"(guns) and "some deaths are unfortunate but the price of progress"(cars) depending entirely on the inconvenience to you Doctors are worse. ;D Doctors: - The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. - Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (and they cause millions more with known-to-be-fatal prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries.) - Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.) Guns: - The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. - The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. - The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 000188. (Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.) Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jul 11, 2008 20:11:06 GMT -6
cars: approx. 42,000 deaths per year guns: approx 9,500 unless you, personally, are willing to put the exact same restrictions and regulations on cars that we have for guns then you are not really interested in preventing death. that would then put you in the camp of "some deaths are tragic"(guns) and "some deaths are unfortunate but the price of progress"(cars) depending entirely on the inconvenience to you Doctors are worse. ;D Doctors: - The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. - Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (and they cause millions more with known-to-be-fatal prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries.) - Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.) Guns: - The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. - The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. - The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 000188. (Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.) Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do." FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.but do you need a permit to carry a concealed doctor? I wonder if I have to pass a background check before having a physical? I guess a 3 day waiting period before visiting a doctor isn't too bad since you can't get in within 3 months anyway ;D only one script a month? does having more than one doctor make them "assault doctors"?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:03:27 GMT -6
Or, in case you forgotten, did they use high powered rifles to mow down defenseless and unarmed people. If you're referring to the DC snipers, the weapon they used wasn't even "high-powered." A medium power centerfire cartridge, the .223 Remington, was used. Who had an Uzi? Fully automatic weapons are quite rare in the U.S., and a special tax stamp is needed to own them. And yet again, we're not talking about need. You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? We absolutely are talking about need. People feel threatened, so they feel the need to buy a gun. Further people need the gun with the most stopping power. Need is very relevent
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:08:01 GMT -6
Pehaps you forgot about Virginia Tech and Columbine. perhaps you forgot that the virginia tech students and both schools teachers/adults were forbidden to defend themselves by the schools. Heller now says they can't do that. maybe next time the students/faculty/anybody will not wait to be killed huddling in a corner. you're OK with that, right? certainly you'd rather see these people live than die, right? you're not that messed up, right? Of course the students etc had a right to defend themselves. Howeve, my point is that the presence of guns is the root and cause of the problem. If guns were properly regulated and controled, there would be no need for the students even worry about self defense right
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:13:33 GMT -6
quote] If you're referring to the DC snipers, the weapon they used wasn't even "high-powered." A medium power centerfire cartridge, the .223 Remington, was used. Ask yourself a very important question, how do criminals obtain firearms?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:19:51 GMT -6
First, I was born in the USA and I strongly resent your remarks. Secondly, you probably should check the applicable law or hire competant counsel to explain it to you. There are limitations on who can own a gun and the type of gun that can be owned. For example, a person on parole is not allowed to own a gun. Just like a person is not allowed to own an M-16. Your point of no requirement nor justificaion or explanation is off base. Perhaps you forgot about the tiny matter of required background checks. Perhaps you also forgotten about people who are now facing criminal prosecution for buying a gun for a criminal. My point is that, contrary to your idea, you cannot own a gun without regulations. perhaps you should hire a competant teacher to explain reading comprehension to you. I am fully aware of restrictions and regulation, I'm in the restriction and regulation business. I said "legal object". if you are a restricted person then that firearm is NOT a "legal object" now is it?? this is why I asked you earlier about the infringement clause in the second amendment, because we do have sensible infringements in place, i.e. felons, illegals, dopers ect., and I agree with them. a background check, does NOT require a "need", a background check does NOT require an explanation of why I want said firearm. and you're understanding or acceptance of my reasons for owning or wanting such is completely unecessary and irrelevant. Ah, so you think there should be some restrictions on guns. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about restrictions. That is precisely the argument I been making. If you go back and read my orginial post, I said that people should be able to own guns for 1 hunting and 2 self defense but we need restrictions. You may want to give that reading comprehension teacher a call your self there pal.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jul 11, 2008 21:23:29 GMT -6
That is not very comforting to me knowing that anyone can own a fully automatic weapon with a tax stamp and yet it appears you didn't know this. they've been legal since their invention, lately with some restriction. so since it appears that you didn't know this, and you can't point to a single full automatic school, mall, public shooting, why are you now discomforted? the people who own these obviously are not the problem So tell me, what is, exactly, the problem and what is your grand solution?
|
|