Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: What level of gun restrictions is right?
I believe private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms (total ban). 7 3.78%
I believe private citizens should have many more restrictions on firearms (no military-style weapons, magazines of a certain size, etc). 37 20.00%
I believe existing gun laws are fine, we just need better enforcement. 70 37.84%
I believe existing gun laws are too restrictive; they should be loosened. 31 16.76%
I believe there should be no laws on firearm ownership, since it is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 40 21.62%
Voters: 185. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2016, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Billings, MT
9,885 posts, read 10,969,651 times
Reputation: 14180

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Making that illegal would be able to prevent that!

I am not really sure, but I do believe that private ownership the necessary materials to construct a nuclear weapon is already illegal. Plus the fact that improper handling of the fissionable material will KILL the handler!
Possession of the completed weapon is probably also illegal.

It does bring up an interesting point though. "That is illegal!"
Oh, yeah, that works...
"Straw purchases" of firearms is illegal. Certain modifications of AR style weapons are illegal. Background checks are required by law in all FFL sales.
Yet, the weapons used by the CA shooters were bought for them by a friend (straw purchase, background check completed), and had illegal modifications done to them. I understand the handguns found were purchased legally from a FFL dealer, with background checks. Manufacturing pipe bombs is illegal, yet completed bombs and materials for manufacturing more were found in their garage.
These people have no respect for the law, and the laws we have are not being effectively enforced, so the answer is simple: WE NEED ANOTHER LAW!
Sorry, the logic escapes me...

 
Old 01-26-2016, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
1,951 posts, read 1,635,575 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
I am not really sure, but I do believe that private ownership the necessary materials to construct a nuclear weapon is already illegal. Plus the fact that improper handling of the fissionable material will KILL the handler!
Possession of the completed weapon is probably also illegal.

It does bring up an interesting point though. "That is illegal!"
Oh, yeah, that works...
"Straw purchases" of firearms is illegal. Certain modifications of AR style weapons are illegal. Background checks are required by law in all FFL sales.
Yet, the weapons used by the CA shooters were bought for them by a friend (straw purchase, background check completed), and had illegal modifications done to them. I understand the handguns found were purchased legally from a FFL dealer, with background checks. Manufacturing pipe bombs is illegal, yet completed bombs and materials for manufacturing more were found in their garage.
These people have no respect for the law, and the laws we have are not being effectively enforced, so the answer is simple: WE NEED ANOTHER LAW!
Sorry, the logic escapes me...
You can't reason with illogical people. I think the irrational "we need more gun laws!" types have a hard time dealing with this, and think that somehow turns the rest of us into anarchists. Like making illegal things "illegaler" makes sense.

"No more laws" isn't the same as "no laws".
 
Old 01-26-2016, 11:48 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,724,200 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Making that illegal would be able to prevent that!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
I am not really sure, but I do believe that private ownership the necessary materials to construct a nuclear weapon is already illegal. Plus the fact that improper handling of the fissionable material will KILL the handler!
Possession of the completed weapon is probably also illegal.

It does bring up an interesting point though. "That is illegal!"
Oh, yeah, that works...
"Straw purchases" of firearms is illegal. Certain modifications of AR style weapons are illegal. Background checks are required by law in all FFL sales.
Yet, the weapons used by the CA shooters were bought for them by a friend (straw purchase, background check completed), and had illegal modifications done to them. I understand the handguns found were purchased legally from a FFL dealer, with background checks. Manufacturing pipe bombs is illegal, yet completed bombs and materials for manufacturing more were found in their garage.
These people have no respect for the law, and the laws we have are not being effectively enforced, so the answer is simple: WE NEED ANOTHER LAW!
Sorry, the logic escapes me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive View Post
You can't reason with illogical people. I think the irrational "we need more gun laws!" types have a hard time dealing with this, and think that somehow turns the rest of us into anarchists. Like making illegal things "illegaler" makes sense.

"No more laws" isn't the same as "no laws".
The person I quoted stated clearly : "Any law on weapons, is unconstitutional"

Which means that all those existing gun laws you're referring to would not exist in the first place, as they'd be unconstitutional. Which is stupid. Which is why his comment is stupid.
 
Old 01-26-2016, 11:48 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,558,981 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
I am not really sure, but I do believe that private ownership the necessary materials to construct a nuclear weapon is already illegal. Plus the fact that improper handling of the fissionable material will KILL the handler!
Possession of the completed weapon is probably also illegal.

It does bring up an interesting point though. "That is illegal!"
Oh, yeah, that works...
"Straw purchases" of firearms is illegal. Certain modifications of AR style weapons are illegal. Background checks are required by law in all FFL sales.
Yet, the weapons used by the CA shooters were bought for them by a friend (straw purchase, background check completed), and had illegal modifications done to them. I understand the handguns found were purchased legally from a FFL dealer, with background checks. Manufacturing pipe bombs is illegal, yet completed bombs and materials for manufacturing more were found in their garage.
These people have no respect for the law, and the laws we have are not being effectively enforced, so the answer is simple: WE NEED ANOTHER LAW!
Sorry, the logic escapes me...
I was being sarcastic.
 
Old 01-26-2016, 11:55 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,558,981 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I more worry about the guy next door who has had a few too many and decides he wants to start admiring his gun collection, maybe wave a few around, maybe while the neighborhood kids are not too far away.

Or mistakenly thinks I'm messing around with his wife...


So your logic goes, after he mistakenly thinks you have been messing with his wife:

1. He may harm you if he has a gun.
2. He won't harm you if he doesn't have a gun.

Without guns, he can't harm you? Tens of thousands of years, what have we been doing before the invention of guns?

 
Old 01-26-2016, 11:56 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,558,981 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
The person I quoted stated clearly : "Any law on weapons, is unconstitutional"

Which means that all those existing gun laws you're referring to would not exist in the first place, as they'd be unconstitutional. Which is stupid. Which is why his comment is stupid.
Please explain to me which gun law is actually useful.
 
Old 01-26-2016, 12:05 PM
 
29,540 posts, read 9,707,420 times
Reputation: 3468
Default See ya...

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive View Post
Hey, I'm not the one that has to wrestle with incompatible beliefs.

You say we should prioritize gun reform, based on no priorities?

Ouch.
Okay, I tried. What I "say" is obviously whatever words you want to claim as mine, but what I have stated is all there in black and white. No "spinning," no "bootstrapping," no "wrestling with incompatible beliefs..."

No such nonsense, just telling it like it is.

Let's just say we tried...
 
Old 01-26-2016, 12:06 PM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,724,200 times
Reputation: 14745
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Please explain to me which gun law is actually useful.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 seems pretty useful to me.
 
Old 01-26-2016, 12:08 PM
 
29,540 posts, read 9,707,420 times
Reputation: 3468
Default No, not my logic...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
So your logic goes, after he mistakenly thinks you have been messing with his wife:

1. He may harm you if he has a gun.
2. He won't harm you if he doesn't have a gun.

Without guns, he can't harm you? Tens of thousands of years, what have we been doing before the invention of guns?

I guess these characterizations make those who make them feel smarter, like they know the obvious better than anyone else, but no..., that is not my logic. I read somewhere that people did kill other people even before the invention of guns. I get that, but thanks for reminding me...

I'd go on, but just about anyone can do better than that if they really want to better understand someone else's logic, right?

Am I the only one suddenly hearing Jimi Hendrix singing "Hey Joe" in the background somewhere...
 
Old 01-26-2016, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
1,951 posts, read 1,635,575 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Okay, I tried. What I "say" is obviously whatever words you want to claim as mine, but what I have stated is all there in black and white. No "spinning," no "bootstrapping," no "wrestling with incompatible beliefs..."

No such nonsense, just telling it like it is.

Let's just say we tried...
How about you try to come up with a priorities list, so we can see where gun law reform fits in?
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.


Closed Thread


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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top