For those of you who think

[Lueyen]

I had no idea you were a crackpot lueyen

just because you want to own various weapons (of mass destruction omg) doesn't mean that you should be allowed to

There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms.

I was not advocating the right of civilians to own a fully functional M1A1 or something of that nature.

The line between 1 item that fires a bullet, and another that fires a bullet slightly faster is kind of a foolish line

a gun is a gun

so you are saying that a .22 is the same as a 155mm howitzer?

I don't think he understood that the M1A1 is a tank.

[Evermore]

apparently

[Phlegm]

[Evermore]

But it goes further than that even. Gun freaks don't even want to register their guns to help solve crimes.

Plus criminals aren't always shady minorities with illegal weapons bought out of an el camino.

Sometimes they're just normal dudes that get made and walk into their closet, get a gun and start firing.

sir every one of my guns is registered, firing pins removed, trigger locks on and kept in a fire proof gun safe. ( with 1 exception ). its not these that are the issue its the ones you can get on a street corner that are the problem. Banning guns will just make them more expensive.

[Minrott]

Since this seems to be a fairly intelligent discussion I'll play. Usually this topic goes right down the shitter.

First of all, Evermore, unless you live in a state that requires registration of firearms, and very few do, none of your guns are "registered." Registration of guns is illegal by the federal government. There are cases of the BATF going to gun stores and filing the NICS they have to keep by law, but by doing that they're committing an illegal act, no one seems to care though because they are a government agency.

Zanchief: My "fanatic" belief in gun ownership stems from the idea that governments in power will always, eventually become toletarian over time. It's just a nature of human history that those in power want more and eventually try to get it. The checks and balances of the American system slow this process down, but they do not stop it. The final check and balance of any governmental system is the citizens of the country, when they stand up and say, "No, enough is enough, we demand change and we are willing to fight for it."

In every, single case of toletarian regimes over recorded human history, the first step of the government in power was to remove small arms from the citizenship. Every single time. Whether it had been rifles, or muskets, or swords, the first step for total control is to disarm the populace of the military style weapons of the time period. Our revolutionary war started long before some tea was spilled over the port side of a schooner in Boston. It began when the British started confiscating muskets.

The entire reasoning behind the Second Amendment is to protect this citizens rights to keep and bear military small arms of the time period. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with target shooting or other recreation.

You state I disagree with "any reasonable control." This isn't true. I do believe in reasonable controls. Some things I consider reasonable and feasible are instant back ground checks. I don't have any problem with my gun dealer calling the FBI and running my SSN to find out that in fact no, I have not committed a felony and show no reason to believe that I would use the gun I intend to purchase in a crime. That's perfectly acceptable to me. However, outright bans on certain types of firearms have absolutely no effect on crime. I cannot abide by laws that make me a criminal for simply owning something, when I haven't committed any crime.

Guns are inanimate objects that require the will of a person to do bad or good. The banning of firearms is just another way of taking personal responsibility for actions out of the hands of people. The spoon made Rosey O'Donnel fat.

Lyion once made a comment on this discussion previously that what did I think, "we should allow people to have artillery pieces in their front lawn to fire off at the government every time they don't agree with what's happened?"

Not in that context. But if you look back at when the Bill of Rights were drafted, the revolutionary government was using privateers and regular civilians as their navy. These people were in posession of cannons and small (2inch) guns and the purpose of the law was to make such a thing legal. In the entire history of our country, the firearm industry has been driven by civilians dating back to this precident.

Nothing in the U.S. Army's small arms arsenal today came from government development. The M16 system of firearms was invented by Eugene Stoner and Armalite, civilians. The Beretta M9 by Beretta of Italy, a civilian company. The M249 SAW by FN Herstal, a civilian company. The M240B or MAG58 by FN Herstal. The M40A1 by Remington, the oldest civilian arms maker in the country.

To say that only the military or police should own/have certain kinds of firearms destroys this industry, destroys any advancement or competition. By saying that I, as an American citizen cannot own a military type rifle, you're saying that I cannot invent one, I can't develop one or start a business with the idea of landing military contracts. That's about as un-American of a thing as I can think of.


The bottom line is that I believe firearms are a necessary part of not just American culture, but a civil right that is not to be denied by governmental devices, and that when it is denied, it's a precursor to toletarian regimes.

If you're concerned with crime, then fight crime. If I were a criminal, or I was going to commit a crime in a fit of rage, I certainly wouldn't be concerned with whether or not the tool I was going to use in the comission of said crime was legal to own or not.

Drugs are illegal, but not to hard to get. Booze was illegal, but wasn't too hard to get. Bans on any substance or thing that people want to have never work, and only serve to create more criminals by the stroke of a pen.

I don't want a missle launcher or other "Destructive Devices." I want what my constitution gives me a gaurantee of, and that is the military small arms of the day.

[Spazz]

Well said minrott it couldnt be said better and i couldnt agree with you more.

[Zanchief]

But military small arms get better and better over time and humans are just as squishy. It's a flawed logic in my mind.

[Spazz]

Well i think it is your mind that is flawed.

[Tikker]

I had no idea you were a crackpot lueyen

just because you want to own various weapons (of mass destruction omg) doesn't mean that you should be allowed to

There are no "reasonable" restrictions for small arms.

I was not advocating the right of civilians to own a fully functional M1A1 or something of that nature.

The line between 1 item that fires a bullet, and another that fires a bullet slightly faster is kind of a foolish line

a gun is a gun

so you are saying that a .22 is the same as a 155mm howitzer?

I don't think he understood that the M1A1 is a tank.

what I'm saying is that unless you have hunting rifles, the only other purpose for a gun is to kill another person

there's no reason to have a gun, other than for hunting, and any other weapons should be just restricted to military/law enforcement

[Zanchief]

Cool.

[Spazz]

How bout self defense tik. Traditional values tik. Your into shooting of all sorts tik. Maybe it brings you peace of mind cuz you think the govt is outta control tik. History has tought a lesson that when only the man is armed they tend to become a lot more powerful.

P.S hunting is for people who dont know how to get to the grocery store.

[Minrott]

You're proving my point. Military weapons get better. By saying that only the military is allowed to have these weapons you're effectively stamping out any chance of a civilian population to resist a toletarian regime.

Here's a hypothetical question. You walk into Subway and there's a cop there, pistol on his belt. Are you afraid? No. Why? He's a person, a human being subject to fits of rage and poor judgement. If I walked in, also armed with the same gun and you didn't know me, I'd probably make you pretty nervous. Why is that? Why is it so easy for people in your camp to trust those in power with weapons, but not those they govern?

[Spazz]

Minrott you know the answer to that. That camp isnt ruled by reason and cause and effect. They are ruled by paranoia and emotion. I think once people have decided where they stand on guns they cant hear anything but what enforces what they beleive.

[Zanchief]

Because I'm not an anarchist.

I believe people need structure, and if the population has the exact same power as the government does than we're living in chaos. The mob has absolutely no reason to listen to authority.

[Tikker]

You're proving my point. Military weapons get better. By saying that only the military is allowed to have these weapons you're effectively stamping out any chance of a civilian population to resist a toletarian regime.

hrm

so how do you feel about iran, iraq, south korea, etc getting nukes?

they need to have equal footing with the US in case the US starts to raise shit

shit, the government has nukes, I better get some too

you don't think it's retarded to start an arms race between the government and it's citizens?

[Gaazy]

Hunting is for people who dont know how to get to the grocery store? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You had a post I could understand earlier in the thread, but now youve lost me again/

[Spazz]

I was being sarcastic actually. Hunting is allright though im not much of one for the outdoors. I was more or less saying i think guns are more for self defense than hunting.

[Minrott]

so how do you feel about iran, iraq, south korea, etc getting nukes?

they need to have equal footing with the US in case the US starts to raise shit

shit, the government has nukes, I better get some too

you don't think it's retarded to start an arms race between the government and it's citizens?

I've stated many times I think North Korea and Iran have every right to have nuclear weapons that the US does.

I'm not talking about an arms race, although there is a parallel. I'm talking about deterence. I think Iran and NK have every right to nukes for the same reason I think US citizens have rights to M16's.

[Tikker]

guns are an offensive weapon, not defensive

[Gaazy]

Eh, I dont keep guns for self defense, but if thats what someone wants to do, thats their cup of tea.

i could hunt all year and not kill a thing and wouldnt be upset, just being out there is what does it for me. Nothing like waking up and being out in the woods listening to everything wake up. Aannnnd of course the sport in hunting is unmatched to me

[Arlos]

On the issue of gun control, I buck my other liberal brethren, in that I do believe that whether we lik eit or not, the 2nd amendment exists, and as such, cannot be abrogated willy nilly, any more than any of the other amendments of the bill of rights. However, I think there are public safety concerns to consider with regards to firearms, which generates a need for reasonable minor restrictions to the base freedom, much like the 1st amendment doesn't allow you to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, due to the potential risk to life & limb.

Understand also that some of my attitudes on this are shaped by the fact that my little brother came within seconds of being killed when he was all of 3 years old due to a negligent gun owner who was just barely 18, firing his weapon without regard to who or what was downrange. Round came through an exterior wall, flew lengthwise down under the dinner table we were all sitting at, (my brother had been standing on the floor at the head of the table; my mother had picked him up and taken him away no more than 10 seconds before the round came through. Given the height of the round and his height at the time, it would've hit him in the forehead), then went through half an inch of oak, before ending up landing in a cooking pot stored in the cabinet it had entered.

As such, I agree with the severe restrictions against civilians owning fully automatic weapons. (Actually, you CAN get a license for an automatic weapon as a civilian, I've known a couple people who had family members with such a license, it's just 3 kinds of a bitch to get.) Also, due to the danger and risk to others life and limb, I feel that before purchasing a firearm, a prospective owner should be required to attend and pass a firearms safety course AND licensing certification test. Also, trigger locks should be required to be included in any gun sale, etc. Once you have your license, which is not tied to a specific gun in any way, you can buy however many you like, just as now, you'd only have to show ID + gun permit, and allow for background checks on both to make sure both are legitimate, etc.

I don't think such a licensing program is out of line, and it would go a long way towards cutting down on the number of accidents and incidental deaths associated with idiots owning guns.

As for congress doing anything to further restrict guns, I doubt it highly. Remember, a big chunk of what got the democrats into power in the house were pickups of seats in the more rural western states, like Montana, Colorado, etc. Those new congresspeople know damn well the sentiments about gun ownership in the rural west, they'd be comitting political suicide if they backed anything that would ban firearms, and I submit that they're unlikely to be quite that stupid.

-Arlos

[Minrott]

Because I'm not an anarchist.

I believe people need structure, and if the population has the exact same power as the government does than we're living in chaos. The mob has absolutely no reason to listen to authority.

I'm not an anarchist either. I don't believe in mob rule or absolute lawlesness. That's not what I'm advocating. You're equating guns to power. By your sentiment, governments rule through power, at the barrel of a gun. That's what I want to prevent. I want government to rule by popular decision. I want the government do rule by doing what the people want it to do, not by doing whatever it feels like doing because the people can't stop it.

If you think you'd feel safer in a country ruled at the barrel of a gun, then by all means, take your next vacation to North Korea, or travel back to Stalinesque Russia.

[Tikker]

so how do you feel about iran, iraq, south korea, etc getting nukes?

they need to have equal footing with the US in case the US starts to raise shit

shit, the government has nukes, I better get some too

you don't think it's retarded to start an arms race between the government and it's citizens?

I've stated many times I think North Korea and Iran have every right to have nuclear weapons that the US does.

I'm not talking about an arms race, although there is a parallel. I'm talking about deterence. I think Iran and NK have every right to nukes for the same reason I think US citizens have rights to M16's.

here's a bit of a tangent for you then

If everyone is allowed to arm themselves to the teeth, and express their individual rights, why bother with a centralized government at all?

[Evermore]

You're proving my point. Military weapons get better. By saying that only the military is allowed to have these weapons you're effectively stamping out any chance of a civilian population to resist a toletarian regime.

hrm

so how do you feel about iran, iraq, south korea, etc getting nukes?

they need to have equal footing with the US in case the US starts to raise shit

shit, the government has nukes, I better get some too

you don't think it's retarded to start an arms race between the government and it's citizens?

you cannot compare nukes with small arms. just wont work I have yet to see a bullet that can render thousands dead and areas unlivable.


Minrott you are somewhat correct. let me be more specific. my pistols are registered. My rifles, including my 30.06 and my 7.62mm M-14 are not nor are they required to be in this state


oh and tikker, hunting rifles kill people too when misused.

[Evermore]

so how do you feel about iran, iraq, south korea, etc getting nukes?

they need to have equal footing with the US in case the US starts to raise shit

shit, the government has nukes, I better get some too

you don't think it's retarded to start an arms race between the government and it's citizens?

I've stated many times I think North Korea and Iran have every right to have nuclear weapons that the US does.

I'm not talking about an arms race, although there is a parallel. I'm talking about deterence. I think Iran and NK have every right to nukes for the same reason I think US citizens have rights to M16's.

here's a bit of a tangent for you then

If everyone is allowed to arm themselves to the teeth, and express their individual rights, why bother with a centralized government at all?

cause you would be living in Cold War Russia or present day N Korea. I dont wanna live there. do you?