U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-21-2008, 11:34 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,513,151 times
Reputation: 4104

Advertisements

All the examples are before mass databases and registration....so really it won't stop officials that they don't have it to really want to do it. Just because it's registered doesn't mean it will be banned, the slippery slope argument is invalid...registering isn't going to logically mean banning, which doesn't logically mean mass theft of valuables. I would like to see where so many people had their valuables stolen in England and Australia en mass.

With Germany and Russia, there no reason to say the populace having unregistered guns would have mattered...what can civilians do against a well trained and armed military following a psychotic dictator?

In addition, assuming Obama is anti American is a pretty wild accusation...I would like to see anything stating Obama is going to ban anything and hates America
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2008, 11:55 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,292,341 times
Reputation: 17985
No;I think that the last supreme court decison will free up alot of the laws and not too many are really interested these days in restriction. Restrictions are usually enacted in tiomes of when more important basics are not the prime focus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 12:27 AM
 
791 posts, read 2,648,646 times
Reputation: 337
Because a society that is not armed may be controlled and I believe that is their ultimate goal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 01:13 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,271,234 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
All the examples are before mass databases and registration....so really it won't stop officials that they don't have it to really want to do it. Just because it's registered doesn't mean it will be banned, the slippery slope argument is invalid...registering isn't going to logically mean banning, which doesn't logically mean mass theft of valuables. I would like to see where so many people had their valuables stolen in England and Australia en mass.

With Germany and Russia, there no reason to say the populace having unregistered guns would have mattered...what can civilians do against a well trained and armed military following a psychotic dictator?

In addition, assuming Obama is anti American is a pretty wild accusation...I would like to see anything stating Obama is going to ban anything and hates America
um.... Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of an unorganized group of people with guns holding the best military force on the earth at bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 06:47 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,338,391 times
Reputation: 2559
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
All the examples are before mass databases and registration....so really it won't stop officials that they don't have it to really want to do it. Just because it's registered doesn't mean it will be banned, the slippery slope argument is invalid...registering isn't going to logically mean banning, which doesn't logically mean mass theft of valuables. I would like to see where so many people had their valuables stolen in England and Australia en mass.
Do some research if you want a valid opinion. England banned all handguns. When something is banned it gets confiscated, call it what you want, I call it stealing.

Quote:
With Germany and Russia, there no reason to say the populace having unregistered guns would have mattered...what can civilians do against a well trained and armed military following a psychotic dictator?
They obviously thought armed civilians would be a problem, or they wouldn't have disarmed them first. The people of Iraq & Afganistan do very well against trained military forces.

Quote:
In addition, assuming Obama is anti American is a pretty wild accusation...I would like to see anything stating Obama is going to ban anything and hates America
Heres a quote that he removed from his website, because as well as being antiAmerican he chooses to decieve us about his agenda.

Quote:
Shortly after the November 4, 2008 election, Change.gov, the website of the office of President-elect Barack Obama, listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. Although its details were subsequently purged from the website, a cache of Change.gov made by Google shows that the administration's agenda includes "making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."[11] Mr Obama's plan to make the assault weapons ban permanent is also stated under the urban policy section of his campaign website, BarackObama.com.
I did not say he hates America. I said he's anti American. He might love the country but not for what it is, rather for what he wishes it were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,088,964 times
Reputation: 3718
Smile He who Ranteth the most winneth...

http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_04.gif (broken link)
Back from near the edge of the grave, I rise to the occasion, prompted by the odd logic in this thread. It sort of reminds one of some of the Christian / Atheist arguments in C-D where the problem, even over there, is not "the Anti-Christ" but rather "The Anti-Logic"...

PS: good morning Tin!

http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/aim/aim29.gif (broken link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I don't see the issue, register all the guns and get a copy of their firing pin patterns/striations on a national database (getting closer to be feasible with computer tech). That way if a person has an unregistered gun or purchased illegally, they go to jail. If people are shooting one another, you can track it to the gun and they get their desserts for it.

Which, BTW, is a light or suspended sentence in a nice warm Fed prison, where they get to work out every day and re-establish their "network". Nice! Good thing for them I and Sheriff Joe aren't in charge!

If it's stolen you know it fast, and know what crap it's been linked to.

Impossible. A moment with a file and the firing pin striations are altered. You've been watching too much CSI Miami. http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_25.gif (broken link) Sing along now: "Anything you can do, I can do better!" Remember, folks.... (Turn on Logic Switch on side of head...) we're talking about the behavior of...wait for it...
LAWBREAKERS. What part of that word is so fri$%kin' hard to grasp?

Same with Bar-Coded ammo. So I borrow a few rounds from my friend's gun before I enter the bank, fire a round or two into the ceiling and send the stupid law enforcement lab team on a time-wasting wild-goose chase. Hmmmm. Or I use a revolver which doesn't spit out its rounds. Hmmm II. Or I use a pre-stupid law gun. Hmmmm III Or I'm a handloader. gonna ban that one too? Hmmmmmm IV.

And yet the *BSMs (Bleating Sheeple Masses) will all feel so safe, until it also, of course, doesn't make one wit of difference except to legal gun owners, and then even more Draconian laws (see Canada, England, Australia, and coming soon, Switzerland) are imbedded into our growing list of silly "social strictures" ( Hmmmmm V: the "SS". Where have I heard that before?)

I just don't see the need for assault rifles, they are fun to try out but not as useful as a Mossberg. Only a lunatic would mess with a person with that trained on them...

Which includes the ever-increasing home-invasion type perps. (And BTW, thanks for your opinion on the "need" for "assault-styled" rifles). (PS ever try to hit something at 175 yards with your Mossberg? Tell you what; you and your Mossberg coming at me, in a nice safe cyber-game of course, and I'll take my AR. We start at 200 yards apart. It will be game over after my first squeeze of the non-fully-auto trigger. You'll be at about 195 yards distance. Sorry. PPS: no personal violence towards you intended, just a logical demo. I love yah, man!! Peace. Let's have coffee some time. And discuss public safety, politics, etc etc.

...and if they are that crazy nothing else would stop them.

I disagree, having shot a few live mammals up to and including an agitated polar bear running at me. I had an H&K 91. You assume too much knowledge sir...

Perfect for self defense in the worst situations, everyone should be handed one and trained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
All the examples are before mass databases and registration....so really it won't stop officials that they don't have it to really want to do it. Just because it's registered doesn't mean it will be banned, the slippery slope argument is invalid...registering isn't going to logically mean banning, which doesn't logically mean mass theft of valuables.

Logic? Logic? Politicians? Logic?

I would like to see where so many people had their valuables stolen in England and Australia en mass.

You again speak from a less-than-accurate perspective sir; the actual videos available on line show the mass destruction of highly engraved gold-inlaid side-by side shotguns, as well as collector's Colts, etc, and, yes, a lot of standard rifles and some assault-styled rifles, in England and Australia. Many gun owners were sort of mob-rule coerced into "donating" their cherished family heirlooms to the crusher. That is a FACT, not hype. And yet crime then rose in England and Australia, by crooks who now KNEW that the homes they intended to "take" would be unprotected. Seems logical to me. How about you? Facts facts facts oh no...

Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that we can and should legislate each and every iota of human behavior, in which case a simple banning of ALL BAD THOUGHTS is brought to bear. It would be potentially easier to apply, really. I'm serious! They're doing it right now in Russia, China and Tibet! You should go and see! Stand out in the streets and call for democracy, gun rights, better internet access, and freedom for political prisoners. All sounds good, don't it? And for us here it's only a Senate vote or two away. Just send your donation and note of admiration to Chuck Schummer, et al.

Remember: a politician on a roll, trolling for power and position-sustaining votes, is perhaps the MOST dangerous animal on the planet, but he/she requires a
non-thinking *BSM http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0024.gif (broken link) response to enact dumb, stupid mis-directed all-for-show legislation. What you get is what you vote in.

With Germany and Russia, there no reason to say the populace having unregistered guns would have mattered...what can civilians do against a well trained and armed military following a psychotic dictator?

Try Afghanistan, Vietnam in the late 60's, etc. And even more proof is available if you'd care to join our little paranoid coffee klatch, here in a post-firearms registration America? Your choice to believe in the utter reliability, ethical standards and good intentions of every WA politician, but I've seen otherwise. Perhaps I'm a lot older than you? And I've also had the odd advantage of having grown up and lived in Canada as well, where violent big-city crime is on a worrisome rise despite their Draconian firearms / airgun / knife legislation. The *BSMs up there sure feel safe though, until they get stabbed on the Vancouver LRT system. Again. These are FACTS, not presumption, or "in my opinion". Those darned LAWBREAKERS again... what WILL we do?

In addition, assuming Obama is anti American is a pretty wild accusation...I would like to see anything stating Obama is going to ban anything and hates America
He removed it from his website, along with some other ideas he knew would haunt him. Fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Do some research if you want a valid opinion. England banned all handguns. When something is banned it gets confiscated, call it what you want, I call it stealing.

They obviously thought armed civilians would be a problem, or they wouldn't have disarmed them first. The people of Iraq & Afganistan do very well against trained military forces.

A dedicated homeland defender, knowing every stump, log, mossy glen, and everglade hidy-hole and cave, and seeing interlopers intruding by force, laughing about raping their women or looting their property, will become the most fierce and problematic guerilla fighter on this planet.
Just as we will be when / if they decide to remove our rights to adequately defend ourselves. And please note that when polled, the National Guard fellows said they WOULD NOT participate with a nation-wide door-to-door "search and seize" that flies in the face of our Constitution. More likely, they'll join our side! (Then we've got the Bradleys. Hoot Mon!)


Here's a quote that he removed from his website, because as well as being antiAmerican he chooses to decieve us about his agenda.

It didn't reproduce here TK, but the jist is that he will re-propose the AWB, which sunsetted for a reason. But who, again, waits for logic. The intent is to dis-empower us, and the more they attempt it against all logical argument, the more it becomes obvious what they are really trying to accomplish.

I did not say he hates America. I said he's anti American. He might love the country but not for what it is, rather for what he wishes it were.
No wiser words were spoken.

Last edited by rifleman; 11-22-2008 at 09:26 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,513,151 times
Reputation: 4104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Do some research if you want a valid opinion. England banned all handguns. When something is banned it gets confiscated, call it what you want, I call it stealing.
If it gets banned of course it gets taken, that's the point of banning it. If it gets registered it doesn't follow it will immediately be banned. Non sequitur points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
They obviously thought armed civilians would be a problem, or they wouldn't have disarmed them first. The people of Iraq & Afganistan do very well against trained military forces.
Very true, and taking a pretty significant chunk out of the civilian populace at the same time. They are not overthrowing anything either, they are not leading people to a wonderful tomorrow, they are simply killing anyone they don't like. Attrition of the populace doesn't help to govern it later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Heres a quote that he removed from his website, because as well as being antiAmerican he chooses to decieve us about his agenda.

I did not say he hates America. I said he's anti American. He might love the country but not for what it is, rather for what he wishes it were.
If he wishes to continue a ban that another person enacts, you should also put them in the same bucket. They have been heavily regulated since 1934 (National Firearms Act of 1934) including full auto rifles being illegal since 1968 (Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986). Clinton started the ban on the "assault rifles" definition and Bush (with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 98-0) continued it (Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Usually being anti something at would at least not like it...and I usually hate it myself.

It's an infeasible goal to want to register and have unique identifiers, but it's what I would like...so what it's infeasible now. Firing pins and registrations are the only thing on now that might work, anyone determined to do anything will defeat the a reasonable system.

Either way, they are weapons almost exclusively used used to take down people...the more the merrier in a medium range situation. If I was in that situation it's the first thing I would grab. If I had a home where anything was 175 yards away I would first give thanks (because I'm rich as heck), and get one. For homes of the non jet set a shotgun is perfect range for self defense, if I was hunting....that's a different matter. I don't want to ban them myself, I like them, but I want to know who the heck has what and if they misbehave to get 'em.

I really doubt there would be much hope to really overthrow a military with the tanks, artillery, and planes with a band of hunters with assault rifles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,088,964 times
Reputation: 3718
Default "Us versus 'them'"

Well yes but, any "army" going after it's own families based on orders from WA, DC, is going to hesitate. Unless they're truly populated by total juvenile morons. Even if they have an M1 Abrams at their disposal. Are they willing to massacre their friends? Their family's best neighbour's friends? Will life be worthwhile in a society after the government has demo'd its true feelings by ordering the murder of its citizens simply because they persist in sticking to the Constitution? And will some kid in the NG or Army have the determination to come at me and my friends knowing that, at the least, I, being an ex-Army target shooter team member, will certainly kill more of them that they little old me?

Is it worth it, or will they, correctly, baulk at the idea of being government stooges? Do we really think that the likes of Feinstein, Schummer, Kennedy, Dodd, Boxer, Reid, etc. actually know better than us about our State and local culture? Do we actually believe them when they paint all gun owners as base, grunting pig-smelly paranoid reprobates incapable of the levels of intellect that they can personally conjure up? Oh puh-leeeze!

Remember that blind obedience to governmental directives is only typical in socialist/communist thug countries. If we devolve to that, heaven help us, but I have faith that we'll resist appropriately, and then you can come and live in our new cecessionist state. You know; Wyoming, MT, Idaho, WA, OR, northern CA, NV, CO, N & S Dakota, B.C., Alberta, Sask, the Yukon, Alaska, the NW Territories, and others who care to join us.

(Apologies to Alabama, TX and many others; on re-reading this post, I didn't mean to forget you. Oh h#ll, most of the Fly-Over-country types can join too. Let's just untie the left- and right-coasts and cast them adrift in their monumental ignorance and arrogance, plus we'll "divorce" from a few select mid-country socialist-incestuous big cities like Chicago, etc. You know who you are by how you think you know best for all of us. Well, sing along now: "We're not gonna take it any more..." Koom-by-yah and all that crap.

Of course we'd have to boot the arrogant other-worlders out of the better joining states. They'd be little isolated city-states now wholly dependant on us for everything. That would have to include the new state of Mexi-SoCal, SF with it's unique social values, Seattle, etc. etc. We'd happily let them buy power, food, etc. from us, but at a properly rapacious predatory rate of compensation. Until they saw the obvious light of logic and truth.

They'd come home to mamma soon enough, right? Actually, I feel safer now if the extreme lefties with their imagined "new majority" actually go for it. It'll bring it to a head, so to speak!

Last edited by rifleman; 11-22-2008 at 12:50 PM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,222 posts, read 7,017,004 times
Reputation: 6608
An interesting book about how to resist a tyrannical government is laid out in the book UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES by John Ross. It is also very entertaining. It accurately portrays the mindset of a lot of us that believe in the Second Amendment.

GL2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2008, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,271,234 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Do some research if you want a valid opinion. England banned all handguns. When something is banned it gets confiscated, call it what you want, I call it stealing.


They obviously thought armed civilians would be a problem, or they wouldn't have disarmed them first. The people of Iraq & Afganistan do very well against trained military forces.



Heres a quote that he removed from his website, because as well as being antiAmerican he chooses to decieve us about his agenda.



I did not say he hates America. I said he's anti American. He might love the country but not for what it is, rather for what he wishes it were.
they started with handguns, and now they are working their way through the hunting rifles as well..

give an inch, and they will take a foot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top