IGX

Terry B. wrote:Americans are nuts about this issue more than perhaps any other outside of drugs. . . . Yes, it would be irresponsible and unrealistic to take away guns from people and ban their ownership but, seriously, is such a thing even being proposed? Issues being debated are whether you should be able to buy a gun whenever you wish and whether you should be able to pack that gun through your local department store.

Many believe that ALL rights depend on the right to own firearms (e.g., your ability to enforce your rights), so any possible limitation on that right immediately raises red flags.

Someone smart said something about being watchful of your liberties lest you lose them.

Terry B. wrote:Americans are nuts about this issue more than perhaps any other outside of drugs. Extreme groups like the NRA (no, I haven't read all of their "positions") that try to scare into voting a certain way and handing over money to them are probably to blame as much as any. Yes, it would be irresponsible and unrealistic to take away guns from people and ban their ownership but, seriously, is such a thing even being proposed?

No, but the only defense to their positions are "slippery slope" ones. "If the government can keep you from keeping an AR-15 at school, then they can take all your guns away and enslave you."

The truth is, resisting a government takeover could be pretty simply accomplished by putting a Springfield 1903 and in every home, and self-defense could be handled by letting anybody carry a revolver if they take training. Ban sales of semi-auto ammo and it'll get too expensive for criminals to bother with. No more killings on the scale of Columbine or VA Tech.

Nobody endorses reasonable measures because neither the NRA nor the Brady campaign care about the 2nd Amendment.

No, but the only defense to their positions are "slippery slope" ones. "If the government can keep you from keeping an AR-15 at school, then they can take all your guns away and enslave you."

The truth is, resisting a government takeover could be pretty simply accomplished by putting a Springfield 1903 and in every home, and self-defense could be handled by letting anybody carry a revolver if they take training. Ban sales of semi-auto ammo and it'll get too expensive for criminals to bother with. No more killings on the scale of Columbine or VA Tech.

Nobody endorses reasonable measures because neither the NRA nor the Brady campaign care about the 2nd Amendment.

your ignorance is staggering.

State laws do ban guns at schools regardless of configuration
a Springfield in every home is compulsory gun ownership, also ineffective against SWAT unless you are highly trained and an absolutely terrible choice for home defense.

"Semi-auto ammunition" does not exist.

and there have been a multitude of gun laws passed, some of which may be reasonable and an entire federal agency designed to police them.

The NRA and the ACLU are the only advocacy groups in the US with the balls to stand by their convictions. I'm proud to be a member of both even when they argue against my personal interests.

protobuilder wrote:

Terry B. wrote:Americans are nuts about this issue more than perhaps any other outside of drugs. . . . Yes, it would be irresponsible and unrealistic to take away guns from people and ban their ownership but, seriously, is such a thing even being proposed? Issues being debated are whether you should be able to buy a gun whenever you wish and whether you should be able to pack that gun through your local department store.

Many believe that ALL rights depend on the right to own firearms (e.g., your ability to enforce your rights), so any possible limitation on that right immediately raises red flags.

Someone smart said something about being watchful of your liberties lest you lose them.

Not nowadays they don't. With a technologically advanced military at its disposal, the government won't ever be browbeaten by a few "rugged individualists" into changing its stance on anything. Those notions are now merely creation myths.....

Blaidd Drwg wrote:your ignorance is staggering.

Oh, snap.

State laws do ban guns at schools regardless of configuration

That's true. Making it illegal to carry a gun on school grounds will not prevent crooks or crazies from doing so. Didn't say otherwise.

a Springfield in every home is compulsory gun ownership, also ineffective against SWAT unless you are highly trained and an absolutely terrible choice for home defense.

Completely wrong. A neighborhood of people with rifles would be extremely effective against a SWAT team. One man in his home with an AR would not be.

"Semi-auto ammunition" does not exist.

Either you're the ignorant one or you're trying to be pedantic. I'm referring to rimmed vs. rimless cartridges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim_(firearms)

Ban the 9mm, .40 S&W, 45 ACP, 10MM etc. Keep 38 spl, 357 mag, 45 LC, etc. Economics will work out the rest.

and there have been a multitude of gun laws passed, some of which may be reasonable and an entire federal agency designed to police them.

Yep. Doesn't work. I live in a particularly restrictive jurisdiction, and can drive 10 miles and buy whatever I want.

FWIW, I would rather keep all things legal, but mainly because shooting is fun and I'm not afraid of the government.

Spells, you seem to favor the most restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment. Are any other Constitutional rights candidates for the Spells Treatment?

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:Not nowadays they don't. With a technologically advanced military at its disposal, the government won't ever be browbeaten by a few "rugged individualists" into changing its stance on anything. Those notions are now merely creation myths.....

Yeah I thought about that. The government apparatus is so complex, and intelligent, and the people are largely dumb and entertained, that it really wouldn't be so hard to disarm the populace or simply take over without really "taking over." Some argue it's already occurred and/or is occurring as we speak. Has nothing to do with whether you can carry your Glock into Walmart. I give you that.

"Let them keep their handguns and rifles. What do we care? We control their elections, their power grids, their borders, their education, their laws..."

johno wrote:Spells, you seem to favor the most restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Yes, pro-CCW is the domain of the radical left.

The most restrictive interpretation states that in the modern world "a well regulated militia" means "National Guard," and that private citizens have no right to firearms.

I'm thinking this ^^^ should serve your First Amendment needs.

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

Terry B. wrote:Americans are nuts about this issue more than perhaps any other outside of drugs. . . . Yes, it would be irresponsible and unrealistic to take away guns from people and ban their ownership but, seriously, is such a thing even being proposed? Issues being debated are whether you should be able to buy a gun whenever you wish and whether you should be able to pack that gun through your local department store.

Many believe that ALL rights depend on the right to own firearms (e.g., your ability to enforce your rights), so any possible limitation on that right immediately raises red flags.

Someone smart said something about being watchful of your liberties lest you lose them.

Not nowadays they don't. With a technologically advanced military at its disposal, the government won't ever be browbeaten by a few "rugged individualists" into changing its stance on anything. Those notions are now merely creation myths.....

Certainly it's possible. But then again, who says that the military will side with a corrupt government willing to violate the constitution?

Spells you ignorant twat

A neighborhood of people with rifles would be extremely effective against a SWAT team. One man in his home with an AR would not be.

Aside from the fact this is a non-starting strawman, you must know something American SWAT teams don't. So you'd like to form a neighborhood militia? Most Americans don't trust their neighbors enough to borrow an egg.

Ban the 9mm, .40 S&W, 45 ACP, 10MM etc....

Rimmed cartridges are not by definition "semi automatic" and you just created the worlds largest reload black market for rounds that can also be used in revolvers. Also...negroes can't afford .40 or 10mm ammo now, so take that one off the list, you racist.

Thankfully my .44 Mag ammo is safe from Spells sticky fingaz.

johno wrote:On a practical note: a substantial % of US gunowners, myself included, believe that they possess a right of self defense that is independent of government permission. And roughly 200 million guns are in private hands.

Considering that US prisons can't keep inmates from getting shanks & drugs, imagine the Police State required to make the US a "gun-free zone."

Just issue 'no knock warrants' like they're candy. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

Turdacious wrote:

johno wrote:On a practical note: a substantial % of US gunowners, myself included, believe that they possess a right of self defense that is independent of government permission. And roughly 200 million guns are in private hands.

Considering that US prisons can't keep inmates from getting shanks & drugs, imagine the Police State required to make the US a "gun-free zone."

Just issue 'no knock warrants' like they're candy. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

That approach has worked so well for the War on Drugs that I hereby declare the US to be Drug Free.
War over.

johno wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

johno wrote:On a practical note: a substantial % of US gunowners, myself included, believe that they possess a right of self defense that is independent of government permission. And roughly 200 million guns are in private hands.

Considering that US prisons can't keep inmates from getting shanks & drugs, imagine the Police State required to make the US a "gun-free zone."

Just issue 'no knock warrants' like they're candy. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

That approach has worked so well for the War on Drugs that I hereby declare the US to be Drug Free.
War over.

I'm buying stock in dairies and in cookie companies. Their sales will skyrocket.

LOL at "semi automatic ammo"!

Turdacious wrote:

johno wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

johno wrote:On a practical note: a substantial % of US gunowners, myself included, believe that they possess a right of self defense that is independent of government permission. And roughly 200 million guns are in private hands.

Considering that US prisons can't keep inmates from getting shanks & drugs, imagine the Police State required to make the US a "gun-free zone."

Just issue 'no knock warrants' like they're candy. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

That approach has worked so well for the War on Drugs that I hereby declare the US to be Drug Free.
War over.

I'm buying stock in dairies and in cookie companies. Their sales will skyrocket.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

What is a reasonable limitation to gun ownership? Some of my doomsday colleagues have fully automatic assault weapons, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher.

Well you should probably not mention that as that's a federal crime.

BucketHead wrote:What is a reasonable limitation to gun ownership?

Two more guns than you have now. Which means you should buy guns one at a time.

Fat Cat wrote:Well you should probably not mention that as that's a federal crime.

What federal law?

The National Firearms Act of 1968

BucketHead wrote:What is a reasonable limitation to gun ownership? Some of my doomsday colleagues have fully automatic assault weapons, a sniper rifle and a grenade launcher.

Well it is a known fact that those items don't work without NVGs, body armor, and secure comms so you would be much better off letting the local PD or SWAT Team handle your issues.

Unless they are your issue.

Fatty, full auto stuff may be completely illegal in Hawaii. But individuals can get federally licensed to own full auto, silencers, etc.

Not grenade launchers.