In reply to Bobzilla:
Somebody already played that card, but in the other direction. The analogy was that you can't drive an F1 car on the streets.
In reply to Bobzilla:
Somebody already played that card, but in the other direction. The analogy was that you can't drive an F1 car on the streets.
Klayfish wrote: ...When 12 year old kids are packing heat in school, we got issues...
Yes, but if all the 12 year olds are carrying, the danger goes away. 
aircooled wrote:Klayfish wrote: ...When 12 year old kids are packing heat in school, we got issues...Yes, but if all the 12 year olds are carrying, the danger goes away.
I know you are trying to make a (ridiculous) point, but you can't seriously believe that.
Because 12 year olds are so good at making logical decisions...
Cone_Junky wrote: I know you are trying to make a (ridiculous) point, but you can't seriously believe that. Because 12 year olds are so good at making logical decisions...
Have you had much exposure to the ability of the average American citizen to make logical decisions? 
Exactly why guns need to be controlled...
has anyone here read US v Miller from 1939?
N Sperlo said: Three or so years ago, a young boy tried firing a FA firearm at a gun show. It climbed and he shot himself in the head. He did not survive. There is a video on youtube of an adult firing a Glock 18 and before he can halt the action he had three new holes in his hand.
I can find countless youtube videos of young teens maiming and killing themselves in cars. And other people. Should we ban cars yet? And that child was killed with current gun laws in place. Laws can't stop stupid. People do all sorts of dumb things with all manner of items. The parents of that child should be locked up for life for the sheer amount of stupidity.
I figured out after your first post you weren't going to sign, and you didn't really care what evidence I provided. And I don't know why people keep bringing up President Obama. I wary of him. He's made statements like "We're working on gun control but under the radar" which could mean anything. He also appointed Eric Holder, a notoriously anti-gun person, to the head of the ATF (which is currently embroiled in the FnF debacle). He has signed bills like the one allowing loaded firearms to be carried in National Parks. But he's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
stroker said: has anyone here read US v Miller from 1939?
Not the entire thing but I'm aware of it.
Otto Maddox said: I thought it over, but while messing around on the website, I found a lot of better petitions. Here is one - Release all known beneficial information regarding cannabis (hemp, marijuana) and its derivatives. Surely there is a line somewhere on the right to bear arms spectrum. Some kind of weaponry needs to be illegal, right? Can I have a cannon that shoots small nuclear bombs? That has to be over the line, right?
I'm sorry if it seems like what we want is unadulterated gun ownership. I can't tell you for certain where the line is. Fully auto .22s but nothing bigger? Mortars under 88mm? Anything under 120mm as long as it doesn't explode? What I can tell you is I think the situation needs to be looked at again.
aircooled said: That's EXACTLY WHAT I TELL ANYONE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT MY NERVE GAS COLLECTION!!! (for some reason I have to yell it at them also)
Sorry, but it never ceases to bother me that for some reasons firearms are treated differently. That is what gun owners have wanted for a long time, to be treated like everything else. If there's a reason to restrict something. But NFA laws were made 'just in case'. And you can't have nerve gas because they're banned by the Geneva Protocol.
For some of the people asking "Why U need full auto?" don't knock it till you try it. Its an experience. Also full auto guns are no more dangerous than semi auto so the whole they are more dangerous thing is really a non issue.
A nut case with a drum mag AK in a mall is going to kill just as many people with an semi auto AK as he is with a full auto. Odds are good that with the auto he is going to hit less and run dry quicker anyway. Moves get people thinking that autos are death machines when in fact auto fire is used primarily to provide cover fire. If you don't hit the target with the first two rounds in an auto burst you are not going to hit it at all.
Regardless i think the restrictions against auto guns are draconian and make no sense. Probably would not own one even if i could buy it anyway.
Brett_Murphy wrote: Atl Atls are illegal in most states. Blame PETA.
For hunting, yes, but at least I can still own them! I'd like to see uncle sam take them away from me! Well, actually, that wouldn't be too hard as I have no gun to defend myself from tyranny, but I can make another one, so it wouldn't really stop me from having them.
Isn't the main reason they are illegal for hunting because of the aiming difficulty? I've heard people argue a clean shot is difficult (i just think they suck at it and shouldn't assume everyone sucks at it). It certainly isn't a lack of power, there's plenty of evidence they successfully took down mammoths.
Anyhoo, back to the gun talk...
Guys, sorry. Just one point on logic.
This idea - "cars kill people, you want to ban cars?" No one wants to ban cars. No one want to ban guns, either. There is no argument here. Some kind of psudo-logic. However, the inverse is an argument for he other side. No one is fighting for unrestricted access to any car for anyone at any time. It's a terrible analog for you on the side of limiting gun control. As many gun control activists have pointed out over the years, it's often easier to get a gun than a license to drive, and there are countless government representatives monitoring how you drive and anxious to cite you if you fail to do so appropriately. If we had that level of monitoring with regard to guns you would be marching on Washington.
Let me help you with your talking points. The response to that is "yeah, but the right to drive a car isn't in the C O N S T I T U T I O N." It's appropriate to say that with a strong Southern accent with a rifle on your lap while sipping a beer. Bonus points if you refused the fill out your census. Double bonus if you refuse to get a flu shot.
When the above is said, those of you on the pro gun control front, respond "Neither is the Air Force. You want to get rid of the Air Force now?" It is considered poor form if you fail to turn down NPR while saying this. Generally, it is best to take a sip from your Starbucks Latte immediately after this exchange and return to your Prius. Bonus points for each condescending bumper sticker.
Guy, come on. Can we please stick to the script? Certainly this has been hashed out enough times on the internet for us to be clear on our positions.
Sheesh. One more point of logic. "Laws can't stop people from doing stupid things". Certainly that is true, but look at the logic behind that statement. Basically, it says the law can't be 100% effective, therefore we should have no such law. Following that line to it's logical conclusion we would eliminate all but the most arcane laws on the books, as most of them are broken many times each year. Certainly if that line of thought were applied even in the most modest of ways we would have legalized most recreational drugs decades ago.
Stick to the script, people. I'm sure a little google work can uncover about one zillion threads on various message boards that have covered all of this. I simply do not understand why the political parties don't publish the talking points for all the zombies to repeat verbatim in these situation. It certainly would make thing much easier and, for the most part, avoid these uncomfortable gaffs.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: No one wants to ban cars. No one want to ban guns, either.
Neither of these statements are true.
People have great respect for their personal freedoms. They just don't car much about the freedoms of other people.
Grizz wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote: No one wants to ban cars. No one want to ban guns, either.Neither of these statements are true.
You win the internet, Literal Guy! Congratulations!
As long as we're being pedantic, it's "Neither of these statements is true". As we all know, a spelling or grammar error makes your point of view invalid! Ha! Ha ha!
You'll need to log in to post.
