Gun laws are victimless crime laws.

115 posts / 0 new

Gun laws are victimless crime laws. I thought liberals and progressives opposed such laws.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

There are 12 dead in Colorado due to these victimless laws.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:

There are 12 dead in Colorado due to these victimless laws.

I was referring to the people who have to go to prison for owning a gun that liberals and progressives disapprove of.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Commonsense461:

There are 12 dead in Colorado due to these victimless laws.

I was referring to the people who have to go to prison for owning a gun that liberals and progressives disapprove of.

The would still be victims they would just be victims of a tyranical government.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Which the second amendment is supossed to prevent.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Where did you get the idea that liberals were against "victimless" crime laws? Liberals readily endorse all types of laws which prevent victimization from occurring in the first place. This is something Libertarians like all of you fine gentlemen don't seem to understand.

I don't want a check in the mail from a corporation for giving me cancer. I just don't want cancer in the first place.

I don't want someone who purchased an assault rifle and 6000 rounds of ammo on the internet to go to jail after killing 12 people and injuring 50. I don't want him to have the capacity to fire 600 rounds a minute in the first place.

I don't want a drunk driver to get hit with an voluntary manslaughter charge after killing people in a car crash. I want police to be able to put him/her in jail before it gets to that.

I don't want a corporation to set up a compensation fund for destroying an entire eco-system and killing thousands of jobs on the Gulf Coast. I want them to be relieved of their right to do deep water drilling upon the FIRST safety violation until they can prove themselves to be responsible enough to do so.

I don't want a car company to send me a check after my spouse blows up in one of their vehicles because the engine happens to periodically catch fire, I want them to be censured and forced to recall the vehicles prior to that and compensate me for my purchase.

It is simply moronic to suggest that there are no rational purposes for society to create legal protections from victimization rather than simply waiting for restitution after something horrible happens.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Where did you get the idea that liberals were against "victimless" crime laws? Liberals readily endorse all types of laws which prevent victimization from occurring in the first place. This is something Libertarians like all of you fine gentlemen don't seem to understand.

I don't want a check in the mail from a corporation for giving me cancer. I just don't want cancer in the first place.

I don't want someone who purchased an assault rifle and 6000 rounds of ammo on the internet to go to jail after killing 12 people and injuring 50. I don't want him to have the capacity to fire 600 rounds a minute in the first place.

I don't want a drunk driver to get hit with an voluntary manslaughter charge after killing people in a car crash. I want police to be able to put him/her in jail before it gets to that.

I don't want a corporation to set up a compensation fund for destroying an entire eco-system and killing thousands of jobs on the Gulf Coast. I want them to be relieved of their right to do deep water drilling upon the FIRST safety violation until they can prove themselves to be responsible enough to do so.

I don't want a car company to send me a check after my spouse blows up in one of their vehicles because the engine happens to periodically catch fire, I want them to be censured and forced to recall the vehicles prior to that and compensate me for my purchase.

It is simply moronic to suggest that there are no rational purposes for society to create legal protections from victimization rather than simply waiting for restitution after something horrible happens.

Well his weapon was semi-automatic so he couldn't shoot 600 rounds a minute.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

The protection from tyranny was probably only practical until the early 1900's when weapons became much more powerful than what the average person could ever possess. I know you think you can pull a RED DAWN and fight a successful guerilla war, but really, that's not realistic anymore. Like I said before, the best answer is to convince military personnel not to fire on Americans ever. Of course, I don't know about the private mercenaries the rich will hire to protect their riches.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

The protection from tyranny was probably only practical until the early 1900's when weapons became much more powerful than what the average person could ever possess. I know you think you can pull a RED DAWN and fight a successful guerilla war, but really, that's not realistic anymore. Like I said before, the best answer is to convince military personnel not to fire on Americans ever. Of course, I don't know about the private mercenaries the rich will hire to protect their riches.

Thats why Texas is important all we do is get fort good and game over America.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

DD, " Like I said before, the best answer is to convince military personnel not to fire on Americans ever."

Ever hear of Posse Comitatus?

DD, " Of course, I don't know about the private mercenaries the rich will hire to protect their riches."

If they are private how would they supposedly get their hands on weapons only the military should supposedly possess. That is a good argument for people to arm themselves with everything they can get. I would worry more about private mercenaries than our military.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote ah2:

Where did you get the idea that liberals were against "victimless" crime laws? Liberals readily endorse all types of laws which prevent victimization from occurring in the first place. This is something Libertarians like all of you fine gentlemen don't seem to understand.

I don't want a check in the mail from a corporation for giving me cancer. I just don't want cancer in the first place.

I don't want someone who purchased an assault rifle and 6000 rounds of ammo on the internet to go to jail after killing 12 people and injuring 50. I don't want him to have the capacity to fire 600 rounds a minute in the first place.

I don't want a drunk driver to get hit with an voluntary manslaughter charge after killing people in a car crash. I want police to be able to put him/her in jail before it gets to that.

I don't want a corporation to set up a compensation fund for destroying an entire eco-system and killing thousands of jobs on the Gulf Coast. I want them to be relieved of their right to do deep water drilling upon the FIRST safety violation until they can prove themselves to be responsible enough to do so.

I don't want a car company to send me a check after my spouse blows up in one of their vehicles because the engine happens to periodically catch fire, I want them to be censured and forced to recall the vehicles prior to that and compensate me for my purchase.

It is simply moronic to suggest that there are no rational purposes for society to create legal protections from victimization rather than simply waiting for restitution after something horrible happens.

Well his weapon was semi-automatic so he couldn't shoot 600 rounds a minute.

Ever heard of bumpfiring?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTohDX-arH4&feature=related

The AR-15 has a rate of fire in fully automatic of about 850 rounds per minute. Someone bumpfiring a semiautomatic would be able to come relatively close to this rate.

Even without this technique, he could still squeeze off I would wager something like 180 rounds per minute. While some media outlets are reporting a 60 round per minute rate, this guy is doing single trigger squeezes and going at about 160-180 rounds per minute (put it to a metronome and I bet that is about right).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMpXZn7QHqA&feature=related

Since Holmes was not necessarily concerned with aiming and merely firing into a confined crowd, he doesn't need to take the time for the recoil to dissapate. He would have been firing as fast as he possibly could.

The fact of the matter is, most libertarians would probably never go as far to say that citizens should be able to own and use high explosive grenades or other incindiary type weapons because they recognize a point at which public safety must trump idiocy. What they don't acknowledge is that you can kill just as many people in a tight space in just as little time with a semi-automatic as you can with a hand grenade.

Anyway, the point is we have numerous "victimless crime" laws on the books that liberals readily endorse. LS's primary claim is a strawman. It is pathetic to see someone who espouses humanistic rationality to stoop so low. I would be equally interested to see if you or LS are just as eager to lift all drunk driving laws off the books given that it too is a "victimless crime."

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote ah2:

Anyway, the point is we have numerous "victimless crime" laws on the books that liberals readily endorse. LS's primary claim is a strawman. It is pathetic to see someone who espouses humanistic rationality to stoop so low. I would be equally interested to see if you or LS are just as eager to lift all drunk driving laws off the books given that it too is a "victimless crime."

Yes I would lift drunk driving laws off the books. Actions should be criminalized, not the substance in your blood.

I find it interesting that ah2 supports putting people in prison when they didn't commit force or fraud against another.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

Nothing is 100%. To note that some people would still find a way around laws is not a rational for not passing a law. If the law would considerably reduce the incidence of some phenomenon it is still worthwhile to do so.

This is like suggesting that we should repeal all drubnk driving laws just because there are still incidents of drunk driving or that we should simply make murder legal because people still manage to find ways to commit murder despite a law prohibiting it.

Also a very intellectually weak position.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote ah2:

Anyway, the point is we have numerous "victimless crime" laws on the books that liberals readily endorse. LS's primary claim is a strawman. It is pathetic to see someone who espouses humanistic rationality to stoop so low. I would be equally interested to see if you or LS are just as eager to lift all drunk driving laws off the books given that it too is a "victimless crime."

Yes I would lift drunk driving laws off the books. Actions should be criminalized, not the substance in your blood.

I find it interesting that ah2 supports putting people in prison when they didn't commit force or fraud against another.

What you are suggesting is that I should be forced to use roads with drunk drivers on them. That is still coersion. A coersionless society is not possible.

How about the rest of them? Should we lift all biological weapons and chemical weapons bans?

Should I be allowed to own a bomb that can flatten an entire city as a private citizen?

I would like to submit for your consideration that you might be a complete idiot.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote ah2:

Anyway, the point is we have numerous "victimless crime" laws on the books that liberals readily endorse. LS's primary claim is a strawman. It is pathetic to see someone who espouses humanistic rationality to stoop so low. I would be equally interested to see if you or LS are just as eager to lift all drunk driving laws off the books given that it too is a "victimless crime."

Yes I would lift drunk driving laws off the books. Actions should be criminalized, not the substance in your blood.

I find it interesting that ah2 supports putting people in prison when they didn't commit force or fraud against another.

What you are suggesting is that I should be forced to use roads with drunk drivers on them. That is still coersion. A coersionless society is not possible.

How about the rest of them? Should we lift all biological weapons and chemical weapons bans?

Should I be allowed to own a bomb that can flatten an entire city as a private citizen?

I would like to submit for your consideration that you might be a complete idiot.

Thats strawman argument cause no one is arguing for private ownership of bombs or bio weapons.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

I have no problem with everyone being able to have a 1776 musket. They could fire off about 1 bullet a minute...giving time to disarm a nut.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

Nothing is 100%. To note that some people would still find a way around laws is not a rational for not passing a law. If the law would considerably reduce the incidence of some phenomenon it is still worthwhile to do so.

This is like suggesting that we should repeal all drubnk driving laws just because there are still incidents of drunk driving or that we should simply make murder legal because people still manage to find ways to commit murder despite a law prohibiting it.

Also a very intellectually weak position.

You competely missed my point, criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws. outlawing guns will do nothing to stop gun violence, it will turn lawful citizens into targets for criminals as well as criminals if they defend themselves with a gun.

Once they ban guns what is next cars. Cars kill 50,000 people a year nation wide they are more dangerous than guns.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

Nothing is 100%. To note that some people would still find a way around laws is not a rational for not passing a law. If the law would considerably reduce the incidence of some phenomenon it is still worthwhile to do so.

This is like suggesting that we should repeal all drubnk driving laws just because there are still incidents of drunk driving or that we should simply make murder legal because people still manage to find ways to commit murder despite a law prohibiting it.

Also a very intellectually weak position.

You competely missed my point, criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws. outlawing guns will do nothing to stop gun violence, it will turn lawful citizens into targets for criminals as well as criminals if they defend themselves with a gun. Once they ban guns what is next cars. Cars kill 50,000 people a year nation wide they are more dangerous than guns.

Look at colombine it happened during the liberal assualt weapons ban.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote ah2:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote ah2:

Anyway, the point is we have numerous "victimless crime" laws on the books that liberals readily endorse. LS's primary claim is a strawman. It is pathetic to see someone who espouses humanistic rationality to stoop so low. I would be equally interested to see if you or LS are just as eager to lift all drunk driving laws off the books given that it too is a "victimless crime."

Yes I would lift drunk driving laws off the books. Actions should be criminalized, not the substance in your blood.

I find it interesting that ah2 supports putting people in prison when they didn't commit force or fraud against another.

What you are suggesting is that I should be forced to use roads with drunk drivers on them. That is still coersion. A coersionless society is not possible.

How about the rest of them? Should we lift all biological weapons and chemical weapons bans?

Should I be allowed to own a bomb that can flatten an entire city as a private citizen?

I would like to submit for your consideration that you might be a complete idiot.

Thats strawman argument cause no one is arguing for private ownership of bombs or bio weapons.

It is not a strawman because LS is calling for the removal of ALL victimless crimes. The ownership of a bomb or a bioweapon is a victimless crime until it is actually used. By his own definition and position, I should be able to own one.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

Nothing is 100%. To note that some people would still find a way around laws is not a rational for not passing a law. If the law would considerably reduce the incidence of some phenomenon it is still worthwhile to do so.

This is like suggesting that we should repeal all drubnk driving laws just because there are still incidents of drunk driving or that we should simply make murder legal because people still manage to find ways to commit murder despite a law prohibiting it.

Also a very intellectually weak position.

You competely missed my point, criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws. outlawing guns will do nothing to stop gun violence, it will turn lawful citizens into targets for criminals as well as criminals if they defend themselves with a gun. Once they ban guns what is next cars. Cars kill 50,000 people a year nation wide they are more dangerous than guns.

I repeat, the fact that NO policy is not 100% effective is not a legitimate reason to eliminate them.

Second, a car's primary purpose is transportation. They end up killing people due to accidents, error, and misuse. The purpose of an assault weapon is to kill human beings. It ends up killing people because it is being used as intended. There is a significant difference. We allow cars because we have judged the dangers are worth the trade-off for its primary intended use. The trade off for asssault weapons is to either be able to kill people very quickly or not. That's it.

Furthermore, assault weapons are not practical for self defense. You don't just walk around with an AR-15 at the grocery store. An equally asinine suggestion. If you are walking the streets with an AR-15, you are doing so because you intend to hurt people, not because you are worried that you might be attacked while engaging in another activity.

Seriously guys, these arguments are tired and overused. They are bereft of any common sense.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

Nothing is 100%. To note that some people would still find a way around laws is not a rational for not passing a law. If the law would considerably reduce the incidence of some phenomenon it is still worthwhile to do so.

This is like suggesting that we should repeal all drubnk driving laws just because there are still incidents of drunk driving or that we should simply make murder legal because people still manage to find ways to commit murder despite a law prohibiting it.

Also a very intellectually weak position.

You competely missed my point, criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws. outlawing guns will do nothing to stop gun violence, it will turn lawful citizens into targets for criminals as well as criminals if they defend themselves with a gun. Once they ban guns what is next cars. Cars kill 50,000 people a year nation wide they are more dangerous than guns.

Look at colombine it happened during the liberal assualt weapons ban.

And they did not use assault weapons.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

Nothing is 100%. To note that some people would still find a way around laws is not a rational for not passing a law. If the law would considerably reduce the incidence of some phenomenon it is still worthwhile to do so.

This is like suggesting that we should repeal all drubnk driving laws just because there are still incidents of drunk driving or that we should simply make murder legal because people still manage to find ways to commit murder despite a law prohibiting it.

Also a very intellectually weak position.

You competely missed my point, criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws. outlawing guns will do nothing to stop gun violence, it will turn lawful citizens into targets for criminals as well as criminals if they defend themselves with a gun. Once they ban guns what is next cars. Cars kill 50,000 people a year nation wide they are more dangerous than guns.

I repeat, the fact that NO policy is not 100% effective is not a legitimate reason to eliminate them.

Second, a car's primary purpose is transportation. They end up killing people due to accidents, error, and misuse. The purpose of an assault weapon is to kill human beings. It ends up killing people because it is being used as intended. There is a significant difference. We allow cars because we have judged the dangers are worth the trade-off for its primary intended use. The trade off for asssault weapons is to either be able to kill people very quickly or not. That's it.

Furthermore, assault weapons are not practical for self defense. You don't just walk around with an AR-15 at the grocery store. An equally asinine suggestion. If you are walking the streets with an AR-15, you are doing so because you intend to hurt people, not because you are worried that you might be attacked while engaging in another activity.

Seriously guys, these arguments are tired and overused. They are bereft of any common sense.

Not true perfect bear and cyote gun and in AZ and TX its legal to walk around with arms on youlegally.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

My comment was not the legality but the practicality and intended use.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:You could outlaw all fire arms and criminals will still find a way to use fire arms to commit more crimes. If this guy wanted maxium dead and injured all he needed was a gas station and a home depot. all the ingredients to make bomds are in those two places.

Nothing is 100%. To note that some people would still find a way around laws is not a rational for not passing a law. If the law would considerably reduce the incidence of some phenomenon it is still worthwhile to do so.

This is like suggesting that we should repeal all drubnk driving laws just because there are still incidents of drunk driving or that we should simply make murder legal because people still manage to find ways to commit murder despite a law prohibiting it.

Also a very intellectually weak position.

You competely missed my point, criminals are criminals because they do not follow the laws. outlawing guns will do nothing to stop gun violence, it will turn lawful citizens into targets for criminals as well as criminals if they defend themselves with a gun. Once they ban guns what is next cars. Cars kill 50,000 people a year nation wide they are more dangerous than guns.

I repeat, the fact that NO policy is not 100% effective is not a legitimate reason to eliminate them.

Second, a car's primary purpose is transportation. They end up killing people due to accidents, error, and misuse. The purpose of an assault weapon is to kill human beings. It ends up killing people because it is being used as intended. There is a significant difference. We allow cars because we have judged the dangers are worth the trade-off for its primary intended use. The trade off for asssault weapons is to either be able to kill people very quickly or not. That's it.

Furthermore, assault weapons are not practical for self defense. You don't just walk around with an AR-15 at the grocery store. An equally asinine suggestion. If you are walking the streets with an AR-15, you are doing so because you intend to hurt people, not because you are worried that you might be attacked while engaging in another activity.

Seriously guys, these arguments are tired and overused. They are bereft of any common sense.

Everything can be considered an assault weapon including the rolled up newspaper you can use to beat people to death.

Military style weapons very good weapons, yes they can be used to kill people, but they can also be used for hunting. They are lightweight, very durable, easy to clean and maintain as well as very easy to modify to fit your situation. an ar 15 might not be a good personal defense weapon when you are at the grocery store but it is a good weapon at your home in the m4 variant. Yes there are better home defense weapons but they all trace their development back to the military just like every single weapon on the market in the last 100 years. When I say every weapon, I mean all of them including handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

Gun bans punish the whole of society for the actions of a limited few.

those who give up liberty for security get neither.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Slogans are pretty but they amount to nothing but propaganda.

Reducing the number of mass shootings is not a punishment.

A rolled up newspaper is not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are selective fire guns made for a very specific purpose - military assault and killing human beings.

Not all weapons are traceable back to military as some of them are specifically designed for personal defense and hunting.

Most hunters will tell you that an assault rifle is not adequate for hunting. One of the reasons they are lighter than a hunting rifle is the smaller ammo which would be perfectly fine for killing a human but would not take down a deer. They sacrifice larger ammo for portability, mobility, high rates of fire, and high capacity magazines to fullfill their purpose - killing humans NOT game.

You strike me as someone who will grasp at any statement you can make to justify your position regardless of whether it is true or not.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:

Slogans are pretty but they amount to nothing but propaganda.

Reducing the number of mass shootings is not a punishment.

A rolled up newspaper is not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are selective fire guns made for a very specific purpose - military assault and killing human beings.

Not all weapons are traceable back to military as some of them are specifically designed for personal defense and hunting.

Most hunters will tell you that an assault rifle is not adequate for hunting. One of the reasons they are lighter than a hunting rifle is the smaller ammo which would be perfectly fine for killing a human but would not take down a deer. They sacrifice larger ammo for portability, mobility, high rates of fire, and high capacity magazines to fullfill their purpose - killing humans NOT game.

You strike me as someone who will grasp at any statement you can make to justify your position regardless of whether it is true or not.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?-Thomas Jefferson

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.-Thomas Jefferson

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

Forthe last timehunting is not about fucking hunting its about the right to resist government.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Look for that YouTube video in 2022 of commonsense461 being run over by a tank while he is emptying his Glock. He will be easy to spot since he will be in a Revolutionary War outfit. Heck-he may even be shooting a muzzle loader. Guns themselves should show the evidence of evolution. Do you think Jefferson had any idea of the firepower that is available today?

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Technology doesn't change our rights!Do we not protect free speech on the Internet and phones because the founding fathers couldn't have seen that coming?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson

One drunk guy stole a tank what do u think a well organized revolution could do?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Dream on you clueless bastard.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote ah2:

Slogans are pretty but they amount to nothing but propaganda.

Reducing the number of mass shootings is not a punishment.

A rolled up newspaper is not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are selective fire guns made for a very specific purpose - military assault and killing human beings.

Not all weapons are traceable back to military as some of them are specifically designed for personal defense and hunting.

Most hunters will tell you that an assault rifle is not adequate for hunting. One of the reasons they are lighter than a hunting rifle is the smaller ammo which would be perfectly fine for killing a human but would not take down a deer. They sacrifice larger ammo for portability, mobility, high rates of fire, and high capacity magazines to fullfill their purpose - killing humans NOT game.

You strike me as someone who will grasp at any statement you can make to justify your position regardless of whether it is true or not.

You strike me as some one who knows nothing about firearms military or civilian.

Any weapon used to assualt some one is an assualt weapon.

The size of the bullet has less to do with the kill than shot placement. A well placed shot from a 22 can kill a moose, however your average hunter will attack this with a 308, 300wm or a 30.06.

The ar platform M16 military platform is accuarate out to 550 meters and capable of killing a man size target out to 800 so they are more than capable of killing a deer. The m16 is a select fire weapon of single shot or three round bust. the ar m16 platform can be adapted to higher calibers than the standard 5.56. The 7.62 variant can be used as a sniper rifle.

to obtain high rates of fire the military has machine guns to cover that task. The average foot soldger needs an accurate, durable, weapon. What hunter would not want that.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote Commonsense461:

Technology doesn't change our rights!Do we not protect free speech on the Internet and phones because the founding fathers couldn't have seen that coming?

Nobody is saying that technology changes our rights. It changes the practicality of using those rights. You still have the right to ride a horse across the country but technology has made sure that you will never ever use that right ever again. You have the right to arms but technology has made sure that you will never be able to thrwart tyranny from within a government that can destroy an entire state with the push of a button. Not on a revolutionary scale of any kind. If you want to thwart tyranny you have to use the much more powerful freedom of speech to do so.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:

Technology doesn't change our rights!Do we not protect free speech on the Internet and phones because the founding fathers couldn't have seen that coming?

Nobody is saying that technology changes our rights. It changes the practicality of using those rights. You still have the right to ride a horse across the country but technology has made sure that you will never ever use that right ever again. You have the right to arms but technology has made sure that you will never be able to thrwart tyranny from within a government that can destroy an entire state with the push of a button. Not on a revolutionary scale of any kind. If you want to thwart tyranny you have to use the much more powerful freedom of speech to do so.

that's assanine of course there is a chance if there wasn't why did we not squash the insurgency in Iraq? Our current army is not equipped to fight a guriella force mixed in with civilians.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

You'll never convince commonsense. He's watched Red Dawn too many times. But I understand if that is the only hope he has.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Wolverines!!!!

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:

Technology doesn't change our rights!Do we not protect free speech on the Internet and phones because the founding fathers couldn't have seen that coming?

Nobody is saying that technology changes our rights. It changes the practicality of using those rights. You still have the right to ride a horse across the country but technology has made sure that you will never ever use that right ever again. You have the right to arms but technology has made sure that you will never be able to thrwart tyranny from within a government that can destroy an entire state with the push of a button. Not on a revolutionary scale of any kind. If you want to thwart tyranny you have to use the much more powerful freedom of speech to do so.

that's assanine of course there is a chance if there wasn't why did we not squash the insurgency in Iraq? Our current army is not equipped to fight a guriella force mixed in with civilians.

Do you not think we could have squashed the insurgency in Iraq with the push of a button? Don't you think that if we really wanted to we could have started and ended that war within hours? Your form of naivety is very dangerous.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Commonsense461:

Technology doesn't change our rights!Do we not protect free speech on the Internet and phones because the founding fathers couldn't have seen that coming?

Nobody is saying that technology changes our rights. It changes the practicality of using those rights. You still have the right to ride a horse across the country but technology has made sure that you will never ever use that right ever again. You have the right to arms but technology has made sure that you will never be able to thrwart tyranny from within a government that can destroy an entire state with the push of a button. Not on a revolutionary scale of any kind. If you want to thwart tyranny you have to use the much more powerful freedom of speech to do so.

that's assanine of course there is a chance if there wasn't why did we not squash the insurgency in Iraq? Our current army is not equipped to fight a guriella force mixed in with civilians.

Do you not think we could have squashed the insurgency in Iraq with the push of a button? Don't you think that if we really wanted to we could have started and ended that war within hours? Your form of naivety is very dangerous.

of course we could met my point is if we won't use those weapons on our enemies why do expect me to belive they would use it on their own people.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:

Slogans are pretty but they amount to nothing but propaganda.

Reducing the number of mass shootings is not a punishment.

A rolled up newspaper is not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are selective fire guns made for a very specific purpose - military assault and killing human beings.

Not all weapons are traceable back to military as some of them are specifically designed for personal defense and hunting.

Most hunters will tell you that an assault rifle is not adequate for hunting. One of the reasons they are lighter than a hunting rifle is the smaller ammo which would be perfectly fine for killing a human but would not take down a deer. They sacrifice larger ammo for portability, mobility, high rates of fire, and high capacity magazines to fullfill their purpose - killing humans NOT game.

You strike me as someone who will grasp at any statement you can make to justify your position regardless of whether it is true or not.

You strike me as some one who knows nothing about firearms military or civilian. Any weapon used to assualt some one is an assualt weapon. The size of the bullet has less to do with the kill than shot placement. A well placed shot from a 22 can kill a moose, however your average hunter will attack this with a 308, 300wm or a 30.06. The ar platform M16 military platform is accuarate out to 550 meters and capable of killing a man size target out to 800 so they are more than capable of killing a deer. The m16 is a select fire weapon of single shot or three round bust. the ar m16 platform can be adapted to higher calibers than the standard 5.56. The 7.62 variant can be used as a sniper rifle. to obtain high rates of fire the military has machine guns to cover that task. The average foot soldger needs an accurate, durable, weapon. What hunter would not want that.

From a pro gun webpage:

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. (See machine guns.)

However, current "assault weapon" legislation defines certain semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons." A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a round with each pull of the trigger, versus an automatic weapon which continues to shoot until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. These kinds of "assault weapons" are sometimes referred to as military-style semi-automatic weapons.

An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifleis an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

  • A folding or telescoping stock
  • A pistol grip
  • A bayonet mount
  • A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
  • A grenade launcher.

(For the Crime Bill's definition of assault shotguns and pistols, a list of assault weapons, and further legal issues see Crime Bill FAQ.)

[The 1994 Crime Bill expired on September 13, 2004. See Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) Ban QUESTIONS & ANSWERS from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Legal definitions: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

Saying a news paper is an assault weapon is like saying a matchbox car is real vehicle that requires a license to operate.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:

Slogans are pretty but they amount to nothing but propaganda.

Reducing the number of mass shootings is not a punishment.

A rolled up newspaper is not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are selective fire guns made for a very specific purpose - military assault and killing human beings.

Not all weapons are traceable back to military as some of them are specifically designed for personal defense and hunting.

Most hunters will tell you that an assault rifle is not adequate for hunting. One of the reasons they are lighter than a hunting rifle is the smaller ammo which would be perfectly fine for killing a human but would not take down a deer. They sacrifice larger ammo for portability, mobility, high rates of fire, and high capacity magazines to fullfill their purpose - killing humans NOT game.

You strike me as someone who will grasp at any statement you can make to justify your position regardless of whether it is true or not.

You strike me as some one who knows nothing about firearms military or civilian. Any weapon used to assualt some one is an assualt weapon. The size of the bullet has less to do with the kill than shot placement. A well placed shot from a 22 can kill a moose, however your average hunter will attack this with a 308, 300wm or a 30.06. The ar platform M16 military platform is accuarate out to 550 meters and capable of killing a man size target out to 800 so they are more than capable of killing a deer. The m16 is a select fire weapon of single shot or three round bust. the ar m16 platform can be adapted to higher calibers than the standard 5.56. The 7.62 variant can be used as a sniper rifle. to obtain high rates of fire the military has machine guns to cover that task. The average foot soldger needs an accurate, durable, weapon. What hunter would not want that.

From a pro gun webpage:

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. (See machine guns.)

However, current "assault weapon" legislation defines certain semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons." A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a round with each pull of the trigger, versus an automatic weapon which continues to shoot until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. These kinds of "assault weapons" are sometimes referred to as military-style semi-automatic weapons.

An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifleis an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

  • A folding or telescoping stock
  • A pistol grip
  • A bayonet mount
  • A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
  • A grenade launcher.

(For the Crime Bill's definition of assault shotguns and pistols, a list of assault weapons, and further legal issues see Crime Bill FAQ.)

[The 1994 Crime Bill expired on September 13, 2004. See Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) Ban QUESTIONS & ANSWERS from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Legal definitions: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

Saying a news paper is an assault weapon is like saying a matchbox car is real vehicle that requires a license to operate.

and you still miss the target.

assualt a violent verbal or physical attack...

weapon any device that is used in an attack or defense of an attack.

so if I attack you with a rolled up newspaper the newspaper is a device that i am using to attack you.

banning military style weapons will punish the legal fire arms owners by eliminating 75 percent of the availible weapons to purchase

well hell under those definitions every weapon I own is an assualt weapon even the bolt action rifle I have.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

The laws against drunk driving were a response to a real abuse. The drug testing laws are not. Unless someone is doing a bad job and/or behaving innapropriately because of drugs, they are irrelevant to the workplace. Again, as with drunk driving, there are some reasonable restrictions for some jobs. But, the problem has to be worse than the 'cure' even where there is a reasonable case for concern.

We have not had a serious approach to gun control or sanity in American gun policies in my lifetime. I don't think we had it before either. But maybe Poly's musket control policy was a totally rational and sane piece of public policy.

Driving involves the operation of a potentially lethal machine endangering others than the driver or passengers who have consented to being passengers. Guns are very much like cars in that regard, but a bit more so. The Founders would be stupified by all this.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

gun control laws do nothing to stop a criminal from using a gun to kill people, just like drunk driving laws do not stop drunk drivers.

mexico has very strict gun laws yet the have had 57,000 gun related deaths in the last few years. 90 percent of those guns come from other latin american countries and the mexican military. only 8 percent have come from the u.s. and a majority of those where part of a failed obama policy.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

gun control laws do nothing to stop a criminal from using a gun to kill people, just like drunk driving laws do not stop drunk drivers.

mexico has very strict gun laws yet the have had 57,000 gun related deaths in the last few years. 90 percent of those guns come from other latin american countries and the mexican military. only 8 percent have come from the u.s. and a majority of those where part of a failed obama policy.

All this rhetoric is cute but would you rather be in a room surrounded by stable individuals with guns on their hip or surrounded by unstable individuals with guns on their hip? If you truly believe that it doesn't matter then you should not be allowed to carry one yourself. Due dilligance (sorry, spelling) is extremely important when it comes to deadly weapons. That means regulation, background checks, etc.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote workingman:

gun control laws do nothing to stop a criminal from using a gun to kill people, just like drunk driving laws do not stop drunk drivers.

mexico has very strict gun laws yet the have had 57,000 gun related deaths in the last few years. 90 percent of those guns come from other latin american countries and the mexican military. only 8 percent have come from the u.s. and a majority of those where part of a failed obama policy.

All this rhetoric is cute but would you rather be in a room surrounded by stable individuals with guns on their hip or surrounded by unstable individuals with guns on their hip? If you truly believe that it doesn't matter then you should not be allowed to carry one yourself. Due dilligance (sorry, spelling) is extremely important when it comes to deadly weapons. That means regulation, background checks, etc.

I do not have a problem with background checks. I would not have a problem with going through a training class for the weapon to show the buyer how to properly use it just like in the military. However I also think that all of the weapons availible to the military should also have a civilian version.

I have a problem with government telling me what kind of weapons I can buy and cant buy. like you can have a bolt action rifle with no magizine no bigger than a 22 but not a semi automatic, because it uses a magizine and has a pistol grip.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

I have a problem with 'you' or whomever buying a lethal war weapon in the context of civil society. What possible good purpose could such "ownership" bring us, and at what cost?

No government licenses its rebels. The idea that the 2nd is about keeping the government afraid of the people is pure fantasy.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

I have a problem with 'you' or whomever buying a lethal war weapon in the context of civil society. What possible good purpose could such "ownership" bring us, and at what cost?

No government licenses its rebels. The idea that the 2nd is about keeping the government afraid of the people is pure fantasy.

Not according to the founding fathers. They stated that when a government is afraid of the citizens there is liberty, when the people are afraid of their government there is tyranny.

What is the harm in a combat vet owning a mark 19 or a ma duece?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

drc2 can't fatham the thought of personal responsibility. He thinks that only those annointed with the magic pixey dust from our omipotent authoritarian government should possess any right of possession and self-defence.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote workingman:
Quote drc2:

I have a problem with 'you' or whomever buying a lethal war weapon in the context of civil society. What possible good purpose could such "ownership" bring us, and at what cost?

No government licenses its rebels. The idea that the 2nd is about keeping the government afraid of the people is pure fantasy.

Not according to the founding fathers. They stated that when a government is afraid of the citizens there is liberty, when the people are afraid of their government there is tyranny. What is the harm in a combat vet owning a mark 19 or a ma duece?

Everyone misses the other side of the coin on this issue. The founding fathers knew that the populace could never stand up to a well armed military and that's why the other little sentence in the Constitution is so important. NO STANDING ARMIES. Without a 24/7 military machine such as the one we have had for all these years then there would be no need for the average citizen to own super weapons. With the way we've ignored that part of the Constitution over the years , we the people don't have a prayer if our government becomes a tyranical dictatorship. That's why it's so important to put idiology aside when it comes to the most important issues regarding our democracy. Get the money out of politics now and hope it's not too late. Vote for who will best uphold the integrity of what truly makes us the land of the free. Vote for who will stand up for the "average" citizen and not just the so called more deserving citizen.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

The problem is ultimately with education, or the lack thereof. As we allow education funds to be frozen or cut, and at the same time we pour even more trillions of dollars into the military, while corporate media feed the idea of a "Global Force for Good" to the public, we end up with a situation where we have a country that glorifies weapons but we are too stupid to know how or when to properly use them.

Taking a few hundred-billion dollars out of the military and putting it into the school system will not give China the means to take us over. It will just make us smarter in the long-run.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

More money will not improve the dumbed down education system we currently have.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote workingman:
Quote ah2:

Slogans are pretty but they amount to nothing but propaganda.

Reducing the number of mass shootings is not a punishment.

A rolled up newspaper is not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are selective fire guns made for a very specific purpose - military assault and killing human beings.

Not all weapons are traceable back to military as some of them are specifically designed for personal defense and hunting.

Most hunters will tell you that an assault rifle is not adequate for hunting. One of the reasons they are lighter than a hunting rifle is the smaller ammo which would be perfectly fine for killing a human but would not take down a deer. They sacrifice larger ammo for portability, mobility, high rates of fire, and high capacity magazines to fullfill their purpose - killing humans NOT game.

You strike me as someone who will grasp at any statement you can make to justify your position regardless of whether it is true or not.

You strike me as some one who knows nothing about firearms military or civilian. Any weapon used to assualt some one is an assualt weapon. The size of the bullet has less to do with the kill than shot placement. A well placed shot from a 22 can kill a moose, however your average hunter will attack this with a 308, 300wm or a 30.06. The ar platform M16 military platform is accuarate out to 550 meters and capable of killing a man size target out to 800 so they are more than capable of killing a deer. The m16 is a select fire weapon of single shot or three round bust. the ar m16 platform can be adapted to higher calibers than the standard 5.56. The 7.62 variant can be used as a sniper rifle. to obtain high rates of fire the military has machine guns to cover that task. The average foot soldger needs an accurate, durable, weapon. What hunter would not want that.

You are freaking moron. An assault weapon is :

Assault weaponFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not to be confused with assault rifle, FGM-172 SRAW, M202 FLASH, or Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon.

Assault weapon is a term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range,"[1] sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2]

The term was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent cases and chamber the next round without human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[1] In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopicstock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.[1]

The are not any gun used to assault someone.

Fucking moron.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Currently Chatting

The GOP war on workers has killed again...

It’s time to stop the conservative's war on working people in America.

Since the birth of our nation, conservatives have always been wary of average working-class Americans having too much political or economic power. John Adams, the second President of the United States and a Federalist (precursor to today’s Republicans), was very wary of the working class, which he referred to as “the rabble.”

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system