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.
Weapons of Mass Destruction seem to be hard to legally own, but obviously Chuck Norris is allowed, because they are part and parcel of his being and to deprive him of that would equate depriving him of life.
Comparisons to European countries and Canada are not good. They don't have fewer shootings and deaths by shooting because they have fewer guns. They have fewer people inclined to use deadly violence. Canadians have a lot of guns and relatively few gun deaths or violent crimes; if Germans and French had a lot of guns they would probably have rates similar to Canada's.
A lot of people in America (certain kinds of people) are criminally inclined and/or irresponsible and therefore there are many more shootings, accidental or intentional. Often the targets are other criminally inclined people caught up in ongoing personal disputes. Plus, accidents happen, e.g., deadly automobile wrecks (ban cars?). So banning guns won't stop criminals from getting them and misusing them (like drugs, which should also be legal). It might prevent some of the accidental deaths suffered by families who would not purchase a gun if it was illegal, but that is a weak line of reasoning to bring to such an established issue.
This gun control issue is often really just a way for interest groups and politicians to exploit something to drum up votes and contributions. I guess there is a possibility that anti-gun people could really seize the day one day - like alcohol prohibitionists in the 20s - or try incremental restrictions over time, but really doesn't strike me as something likely enough to make it into a persistent issue, because there is no cabal.
Now that it's clear I'm not against people owning guns...using guns as a means of protection against the State is probably doomed to failure. It's a detriment in the aggregate, but firearm ownership won't protect an individual, or relatively small group of individuals, from the government for long. Maybe if there was a civil war, withsignificant U.S.military defections, it would be useful, but that's pretty unlikely...actually, we did have a civil war with military defections, and the same would probably happen again - someone like Gen. Sherman will come to town - but in a 21st century way - and it will be over.
How many standoffs do the police lose? They don't give up and say "you win. this is too hard". In the late 19th century state governors utilized the National Guard to supress strikes. Going even farther back, to the days of President George Washington: what happened to the armed Whiskey Rebels in Pittsburgh?
You can pretty much own any of those now if you have the money and a clean background. My father-in-law was a frequent purchaser of TNT to remove beaver dams from his farm. You can get a GE mini-gun for the low, low price of $250,000. Enzio Ironworks has a 20mm rifle that is classified as small artillery.
Let's get back to the day before the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Even though I don't agree with it, at least the tax hasn't gone up. It was $200 back then and it is still $200.
It was obviously a failed attempt at S A R C A S M.
Nothing about Barack, or Hussein, or Obama remotely reminds one of a Christian name, nor a name anyone could have fathomed would ever be in the White House.
Just another sign of the times .... just a measure of how close we are to the finish line, in our race to the bottom.
It is not sarcasm when some people seriously make that argument (and many do so for a living).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo6
Well, then the sky's the limit per the constitution, however that also doesn't restrict the government (fed. or local) from seperately defining what "well armed" should or should not mean. This is already the case- I believe fully automatic weapons are prohibited, for example.
So if the government decides that "arms" be limited to knives, gun rights people should just deal with it?
Since Barack Hussein has decreed that healthcare and contraceptives are a right and must be provided by the government, I want to know when the government is going to subsidize my purchase of a new handgun and ammunition? My "right" is actually in the Constitution.
He will use HHS similarly to abolish your RKBA (public health hazard).
It is not sarcasm when some people seriously make that argument (and many do so for a living).
So if the government decides that "arms" be limited to knives, gun rights people should just deal with it?
I guess thats when we start organizing!
Seriously, I don't know the answer. We've been thru this before with the assault rifle debate and on going debates in various cities about handguns. Its always been hotly contested. In DC the Heller ruling stated that the handgun ban was unconstitional. I don't know what happened next from a legal perspective. My understanding is that people have been buying guns, (and incidently violent crime has been falling) but does DC have other avenues of limiting this- like prohibiting the sale of such things, etc? I don't know.
Well, then the sky's the limit per the constitution, however that also doesn't restrict the government (fed. or local) from seperately defining what "well armed" should or should not mean. This is already the case- I believe fully automatic weapons are prohibited, for example.
Depends on the state. They are legal here in MS and surrounding states. Every year in TN, people gather at Knob Creek for the annual machine gun shoot. If it's not your thing, then at least fast forward to 1:44 and see how a mini-gun looks at night.
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.
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.
