-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Controlling guns??
- Thread starter ZECH
- Start date
No, I don't think that I alone could make a difference. And the military definitley has superior weaponry to anything we could have.redspy said:
But it is the old "united we stand, divided we fall" situation. If all of the citizens are allowed to have guns, now you have a force to be reconned with. How would the police (or a foreign army) come into a city of say 100,000 people and force something on them? The police could not even control the riots after the Rodney King verdict and those guys didn't even have guns.
Do I think it is a reality that our government is going to go haywire ? No.
But what does have a reasonable possiblity of occuring is the terrorists knock out the electric grid with some nukes. Without power the Y2K problems come up and you can have total chaos. With roving groups of people looking for food, how are you going to defend yourself or your family.
I can see that happening.
Controlling guns has NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to do with controlling gun crime. Every place that has implemented gun bans(England, Australia...) has had a very large increase in gun crime. Look at the US cities that have gun bans and see how their gun crime rates are (DC, Chicago, Detroit).
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=574846
I didnt figure Prince as a anti-self defense person. Kind of a shock. Some estimates state that guns are used in self defense between 400K and 4 million times per year. I have used mine twice in the last 5 years at my house. Never shot it but I pulled it. The police could care less that this happened when I called them. The second time I didnt even waste my time calling.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=574846
I didnt figure Prince as a anti-self defense person. Kind of a shock. Some estimates state that guns are used in self defense between 400K and 4 million times per year. I have used mine twice in the last 5 years at my house. Never shot it but I pulled it. The police could care less that this happened when I called them. The second time I didnt even waste my time calling.
If we banned everything that could kill something we'd be eating with our hands and outlawing sticks and rocks too.
Since most agree the right to own and bear firearms is constitutionally protected, what's to argue about? As someone else said......what's better? Pass more laws, or enforce the ones we got?
If we have no intention of enforcing a law, there's really no need for it to be on the books.
Hand guns have their place, but if you are arming to protect your home a shotgun is a much better bet, IMHO.
Since most agree the right to own and bear firearms is constitutionally protected, what's to argue about? As someone else said......what's better? Pass more laws, or enforce the ones we got?
If we have no intention of enforcing a law, there's really no need for it to be on the books.
Hand guns have their place, but if you are arming to protect your home a shotgun is a much better bet, IMHO.
Very cool movie! One of my all time favs!Jeeper said:Didnt you see "Red Dawn"?
yeah, because sticks and rocks are comparable to guns.Stickboy said:
The reason that the 2nd amendment existed was for states to operate militias. The law is very outdated and needs to be changed, last I checked we do not need militias anymore in the US. Also, the 2nd amendment can be interpreted differently.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
Actually, it would be better to redefine many of the laws and bring them up to this day and age, or do away with some of them alltogether.
Robert DiMaggio said:
Sure we need them. Look at the election in 2000 and what is getting ready to happen Nov.2. The country is very split. We are headed for civil war if things don't change. I think a militia can be used to defend a community, town or state. Who says a militia can't be a single family that wants to protect themselves. You for one are for smaller government and less interference in personal lives. What happens when that isn't an option? How will we protest or fight back if the government decides they don't won't us to and we don't have guns? Guns are the only thing that keeps our government in line!
Control guns don't control guns. Either way criminals will always have them. At least let me keep mine so I can shoot the bastard that breaks into my house.
People that think gun control will solve the crime rate are idiots.
People that think gun control will solve the crime rate are idiots.
What color are you going to shoot them? Red, Orange, Yellow??Fade said:
If using the logic that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have them, then wouldn't the true be same with drugs? Why outlaw them if they can get em anyway?
DG-Red Dawn kicked ass.
And as for your civil war comment, how do you think we will split this time, just along party lines? I think should be along gender lines so that when we win we can make the chicks do whatever our bidding is, like it is supposed to be.
DG-Red Dawn kicked ass.
And as for your civil war comment, how do you think we will split this time, just along party lines? I think should be along gender lines so that when we win we can make the chicks do whatever our bidding is, like it is supposed to be.
Robert DiMaggio said:
I don't agree that guns should be banned, although I fail to see the need for a fully automatic weapon, but if the only angle they have is that criminals will still be able to get them, then what the hell is the point in making anything illegal? Isn't it the essence of a criminal to break laws?
Plus, going to the NRA for info on shooting deaths is like going to Philip Morris and asking if cigarettes are bad.
I know I'm "one of them", but it's amazing how firmly peolpe are in their beliefs on politics. Really scary. I really think you are going to see every election very close now.Dale Mabry said:If using the logic that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have them, then wouldn't the true be same with drugs? Why outlaw them if they can get em anyway?
DG-Red Dawn kicked ass.
And as for your civil war comment, how do you think we will split this time, just along party lines? I think should be along gender lines so that when we win we can make the chicks do whatever our bidding is, like it is supposed to be.
Fade said:
Exactly ! that's what I'm talking about...
Robert DiMaggio said:
Even my dad, who is a federally licensed gun dealer and owns over 500 guns himself, totally agrees with you. I do as well. My dad will ONLY deal in rifles and shotguns. He doesn't believe in dealing guns that were created with the purpose of being used against other human beings.
Dale Mabry said:
The FBI crime stats show that only ONE LEGALLY owned fully automatic weapon(Class III-Tax Stamp etc...) has been used in the commision of a crime in the last 70 years. And that was by a police officer. A good machinist can make any gun automatic or make one from scratch the same way a guy in his house can grow pot.
The need for fully automatic weapons is really at the base of the second amendment. It is meant to protect the people from opression. Fighting back against the gov'ment with a musket isnt going to work well. The fact of what is happening in Iraq should show the viability of citizens with guns. And that is just a small group.
I feel bad for the people that dont think this country could ever be in such a state where they will need to defend themselves. Imagine if (or when) a large bomb or series of bombs are eventually detonated here. Caos and looting could be prevelant. Gangs could rule the streets etc. But I guess most think that cant happen. I guess you could just ask the Korean store owners who were on their roofs with AK47's keeping their shops from being destroyed and their daughters from being raped in the LA riots.
Jeeper said:
aslkdfhlaskhflakjshdf
Actually Fully automatic weapons are COMPLETELY LEGAL in most states. You need to get a class 3 permit(aka Tax Stamp). Go to the BATF website if you are confused about this. It is a very very common misconception. The current Class III permit started in the 30's and the records are extensive back to then. Since the guns are individually licensed after an extensive background check there are good records of crimes etc.
The second part I was saying about Iraq insurgents is that a small group of armed people could be very effective. Imagine if the whole country felt this way.
The second part I was saying about Iraq insurgents is that a small group of armed people could be very effective. Imagine if the whole country felt this way.
I definitely did not know that. What was the purpose of the ban then?
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,415
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Finally back in New England!!
Robert DiMaggio said:
I never said you did.
Dale Mabry said:
There are multiple "Bans" in place still if you want to call them that. The federal assault weapons ban that just sunseted banned NEW PRODUCTION and IMPORTATION of weapons with certain characteristics(bayonet lug, flash supressor...) It also banned new production of magaizines with more than 10 rounds. This did not ban anything made prior to the magic date(September 13th 1994-I think). There were already millions of "pre-ban" guns here with those characteristics that remained completely legal. THe manufacturers wanting to sell new "post ban" weapons just took of the offending items and sold basically the exact same weapon. As far as magazines go..the price went up on them but they were still easily available. I mean every AR-15 can use M-16 mags. Think of the number of M-16 mags that were made for vietnam. The military sold those as surplus so they are out there by the millions.
The federal machine gun ban was in 1986(I think). This one banned new production and importation of any full auto to a civilian. You can still buy full auto through the Class III as long as it is a pre 1986 gun. This really drove the price through the roof on those gun.
I hope that helps!
Robert DiMaggio said:
I said if we banned everything that could kill you. Read it in context. I could kill you with a rock or a stick, could I not? Someone could kill me with either one.
People can interpet it however they want. Until the Supreme Court decides differently, they are legal. It couldn't be overturned now even if the government wanted to. Think about the reaction millions of Americans would have. I doubt it would be pretty.
On this point, I actually agree with you.
Stickboy said:
Actually is it basically completely left up to the states right now. SCOTUS has never really hit the issue straight on the head. The case that was cited in the article about the second ammendment happened before many new SCOTUS decisions came down incorporating the bill of rights to the states. Some of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated while some have not. The second ammendment has never been explicitly incorporated.
There is a split in the federal circuit courts whether there is an individual right to own a gun. Only the 5th circuit(Texas, Louisianna, etc..) has said that there is an individual right. The 9th circuit(Kalifornia recently said that there is not an individual right and that the state can regulate all it wants to. Of course many states say that there is a right in their states constitutions that there is an individual right.
This is the problem with Activist judges. An activist judge will read anything they want into the 2nd amendment. If you want to know what was intended by the founding fathers, all you have to do is look at their other writings. The federalist papers and the writings of congress back then.Jeeper said:
They clearly said that every citizen had a right to have a gun.
But if you are "anti gun" you do not want to bring that up, because you are dead in the water. You only want to argue the 2nd amendment verbage because maybe you can convince someone otherwise there since it is not as precise on its wording. If society has come to the point of saying "no to guns" then we need to change the 2nd amendment. But this takes a huge vote in congress. That is real hard, no, almost impossible.
But if you can get a judge to overrule the 2nd amendment, you only need the vote of one judge. Or on appeal, you only need the votes of a couple judges.
Thus, a liberal judiciary could overrule the constitution instead of congress trying to amend the constitution. That is why you see so many more law suits these days.
Out here in California, the 9th circuit is very liberal. In legal circles, they joke and say the only purpose of the Supreme Court is to over-rule the 9th circuit.
Robert DiMaggio said:
It is very rare for someone to use a gun against an invader usually due to the circumstances. Most criminals invade at night, when there is limited visibility and people are at sleepyland. By the time the homeowner realizes that their is an intruder they : a. Scare him away via all the noise they make trying to find their gun/call 911 b. Don;t have a chance of getting it because of the 21-foot rule, which = if someone is within 21 feet of you it is highly unlikely that you will be able to draw a holstered weapon and engage them. Most are scared away.
When will you gun fags stop using the 228 year old Constitution to impose your morals and ethics on people. That amendment was in place because their was no organized full time army at that point. The British had banned all weapons from use. The Const. was written to "ensure the Common Defense" and to basically tell the British to kiss our ass. Every amendment written was a counter to a former British ban or rule. It was not put in place so every idiot could own an auto. And would you all get off the ban; there was only a very few things banned, mostly new imports, others were restricted or required registering or a waiting period. You need a license to drive a car, hunt, fish, get married. Why wouldnt you need one to possess something that can and does kill other people. The bans and restrictions are not on the guns, but on the people who would like to possess thems. So the addage that "guns dont kill people, people kill people" holds no water. We arent banning guns, but the morons who wish to possess them without licensing or need. Then there is the argument that " I should be able to have one because I want one". Well I want a fucking lambourghini and a tiger in my backyard along with 17 blonde female prostitutes, but I cant do that, can I. So just because you want it, doesnt mean you should get it without some process. Very few people want complete bans, only the radicals, most just want a process in place to prevent the wrong people from having them inappropriately. And dont say "oh must be you down own any". I do, a high-capacity pistol, AR-15, Mossberg 500 shotgun (pistol grip, short barrel), auto loader shotgun, SKS at Mossberg 590. All registered even though I dont have to in my state. All locked up. I have alot of training on all of them and own them because they are mostly all military-similar weapons and I train on them at home "for the common defense".
