Just curious on different points of view

Blackmind,

To your question, " why do you fail to see how the situations are analagous?"

My answer, "why do you fail to see "the reasons" for pushing far into the idiotic territory?
 
Xavier

My statement, I am so sure " I could trigger your anger".

I've never said I can't control mine or you can't control yours. I was giving this as an example but maybe I should have used a different one such as road rage.
My desire as I said before is to live in peace.

Your statament, " the question is wether you can support your answers with fact rather than opinions"
Mine, "Yes I could" but as another amendment says "I have the right to privacy".

Yours again, "how do you know that some people that in apperance looks decent go into weird twist of mind"
Mine, "I know from my own experiences and reality world that this happens".

Also, did I ever mention anything about outlawing ?
Maybe if you go back to post #5 you'll see I did not argue anything.
I was just giving the freedom to other countries to own whatever they want just exactly in the same way you'd like to own whatever you want.

I will no longer argue this matter because my point was wrongly seen by some :( , if you can't comprehend this then don't expect anti's to understand your theories either.
I like to understand both sides.
 
It saddens me to see that you don't see any further than what you want to see. Maybe you should feel compassion for yourself .

RMTB
 
my only point is that there should be certain limits placed on weaponry beyond small arms.
Click to expand...
It's already been done - by federal law.

The Second Amendment guarantees We The People have an individual right to keep and bear firearms, that is hand and/or shoulder fired, non-crew served arms not over .50 caliber.

If a person has in their possession an operational hand grenade, bazooka, nerve gas, stinger missle, anti-tank missle, nuclear warhead, napalm bomb, etc., they are committing a federal felony. Why? These weapons were made and sold exclusively to the U.S. Government. They are in possession of stolen government property, as well as being in possession of weapons that are not covered by the Second Amendment.

When a gun-hater says "you think people should be able to own nuclear weapons too??" they are showing their ignorance of the facts.

They may equate an AK47, AR15 or M1A rifle with a nuclear weapon or a stinger missle, but Federal law does not; neither does the Second Amendment.
 
This is an easy one..

A tank is a vehicle....with a gun on it... it's not some supernatural power sent from god to destroy the universe.

Why ban something that some people can use? Even if it's for recreational reasons? (Like blowing cars up).

And a common use for this would be to repel an attack of equal or greater force... and when it comes to repelling something as powerful as the government, we are...by law...going to be weaker...

Why someone would want to be on the underdogs team ALL the time....defeats me.

Also...by blowing cars up, I don't mean blowing up cars driving down the highway, that would be murder... I'm talking about, if you have several acres of land and YOU own a car, or whatever it may be....I dont see why blowing it up should be illegal...after all it's your property, you are destroying YOUR property.

Now I can already see it, "What would stop someone from blowing cars up that are driving down the highway?"

The same thing thats stopping you from going to a populated store and opening fire on random people....
 
I wonder if has occurred to anyone that under the present system civilian ownership of major weapons of war would be equal opportunity rather than affirmative action?

By this I mean that any citizen who passes a background check can now buy any NFA weapon they can afford. Sure some things like Vulcan guns cost a hundred thousand dollars, but anyone who can pass a background check for a form 4 can buy them provided they can afford them.


In a dictatorship like Ba'thist Iraq only members of specific minorities could own them.

There must be a lesson here somewhere.
 
Guess I'm the bad guy

I certainly do believe that it is better to give people authority and hold them accountable for it then to make laws which constrain and babysit the public. However, given the lethality of modern weaponry I do not think it wise to allow civilians unlimited access to weaponry, with the only constraint being economics. There needs to be some balance between the right to bear arms and the limitations on what arms people can bear so that no individual becomes too dangerous to the general public. Unfortunately that requires debating and coming to a consensus about what is reasonable. However, I believe that debate is a more honorable pursuit than either of the extremes. It would not be good for the community (or Government) to prevent citizens from having access to adequate weaponry for self defense and for being able to field a militia, and it would definitely not be good for citizens to be able to buy nerve gas and store it in their frig.

In my opinion the federal regulations in place do a pretty good job. Law abiding citizens should be able to get a pistol, rifle, shotgun, or semi-auto assault rifle if they want, IMO. But I think allowing citizens acces to fully auto submachine guns and other high end military equipment would not be good.
 
Explain your point of view, why would it not be good?

You own a Glock 17.... and youre a cool headed gun owner, what about a glock 18 makes you a murder machine?
 
There needs to be some balance between the right to bear arms and the limitations on what arms people can bear so that no individual becomes too dangerous to the general public.
Click to expand...
I think that a Mr. Atta and his associates in 2001 demonstrated that a person does not require military hardware to become extremely dangerous to the general public.

It's not the weapon that is dangerous, but the person who weilds it.
 
Hold your breath, XB, because in a moment someone's gonna argue, "Well, why should we make it easier for them, then?"

:rolleyes:


-blackmind
 
Imagine this,

Lets restrict people to only buying 1 hammer a day, anyone who buys more is obviously craking people in the head with them.
 
Explain your point of view, why would it not be good?
Click to expand...

I think that allowing semi-autos, but not full autos, strikes a good balance between allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves and preventing BG's (especially people who have a sudden shift in demeanor and become dangerous) easy access to powerful weapons. My reasoning is based on two assumptions:

1) There are a lot of evil people out there.
2) The ease of access (or lack thereof) to powerful weaponry can be a significant barreir to entry to someone who is intent on doing harm to others.

Assumption 1 is why I believe all law abiding citizens should have the right to buy firearms to protect themselves. Small arms are going to proliferate among BGs regardless of the laws in place.

I believe assumption 2 to be true because just because someone is evil does not mean they are competent and/or patient. There will always be people who can pull off devstating crimes like the Oklahoma bombers, but that does not mean we should make it easy for the dumb ones. For the extreme case: I believe easy proliferation of such weapons as high explosives and nerve gas would be more dangerous to society than beneficial (in fact, I see no benefit). The lack of easy access is certainly in the public interest. As for why I would draw the line between autos and semi-autos, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I think the current laws have a pretty good track record. At least the dumb ones can't just hold the trigger and spray.
 
Hold your breath, XB, because in a moment someone's gonna argue, "Well, why should we make it easier for them, then?"
Click to expand...

Okay, tell me why we should make it easy for them. No one needs a full auto to defend themselves. Do you think you're going to be attacked by a Polish calvary charge or something? What public benefit is there for allowing citizens to easily upgrade from semi-auto to full auto?
 
Why is it not enough that a guy would have to go through an instant electronic background check before buying a full-auto weapon?

How about a compromise? Make full-auto "legal" again, and subject to the same background checks as all FFL sales are currently; and prohibit any transfers except those that go through an FFL (i.e. no personal sales).

This way, buying a full auto would be as easy for legitimate people to buy it as it is for them to buy a regular gun now. But each sale, even sales from a personal collection, would legally have to go through a background check once again.

Of course, the same proplem that plagues the current system would plague that one: if someone DECIDES to BREAK THE LAW, and sell to someone who should not be allowed to legally purchase a gun, he can do it. All it takes is a willingness to run the risk.

-blackmind
 
Scope said:
Okay, tell me why we should make it easy for them. No one needs a full auto to defend themselves. Do you think you're going to be attacked by a Polish calvary charge or something? What public benefit is there for allowing citizens to easily upgrade from semi-auto to full auto?
Click to expand...


The public benefit is the ORIGINALLY IMAGINED one, dating back to the framers of the Constitution: We, the People, should have arms capable of helping us throw off the yoke of tyranny if it is ever put on us.

I never did say, did I, that I thought I needed full auto for self defense. But self defense is not the only purpose of the right to keep and bear arms. It is quite possible that the People could come to need military arms to quell a despotic regime.

How's that for a public benefit? You didn't have to attempt to ridicule any reason I might have before having read it...

-blackmind
 
My opinions are mixed as to what someone should be allowed to own.

Full Auto and Semi Auto are the same in my eyes. Id say they should both be legal and easily obtained by those with an ok record.

Now when it comes to things like Rocket launchers and grenades I dont believe they should be allowed. But thats just me.
 
How's that for a public benefit? You didn't have to attempt to ridicule any reason I might have before having read it...
Click to expand...

I did not mean for my statements to come off as ridicule. Its not personal, its a debate. To critically look at each others statements is part of the process.

To answer both of your posts:

My own definition of "self defense", in the context of this argument, includes attempting to throw off oppressive regimes. However, the reality of the world I see leads me to believe that with the capabilities of modern weaponry the days of uprising to throw off oppressive regimes is over. Having armed citizens can deter some the aggressive tendencies of evil regimes; but even if we allowed citizens to have military quality equipment, including WMDs, the best an uprising could hope for is mutually assured destruction. Armed citizens merely provide economic incentive for people in power to keep their word and not breech their oaths to the people. I do not think an uprising could really work, especially in the US.

Why is it not enough that a guy would have to go through an instant electronic background check before buying a full-auto weapon?
Click to expand...

I think that full auto weapons, especially submachine guns in close quarters, provide an aggressor with a large tactical advantage that is not balanced out by the defender having a similar weapon. Generally attackers have the advantage of being able to pick their location of opportunity and shoot first. A weapon that throws out tons of lead and requires minimal accuracy simply exacerbates the problem. Furthermore, unlike a weapon like the .50 BMG, a BG doesn't have to plan ahead or be particularly clued in or skillful to use it effectively. This is where the argument of capability comes in. I think there is a greater benefit to society by restricting access to full auto guns then there is by letting law abiding citizens carry them. Being relatively few in numbers and easily out of place even at a gun range, I think restricting access to full autos does help limit the number of such weapons that get into the hands of criminals.
 
blackmind,

I find myself agreeing with what you have to say, as usual. A side note about the tanks, this guy sells them street legal: http://www.westword.com/issues/1997-06-19/news/news2.html

I want one :D


Scope,

I would like to own a full auto some day because it looks like fun. I think I should have every right to own a machine gun. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying eliminating full autos is an easy way to lessen the chances of criminals obtaining them. Careful with that, because the same can very easily be said about every other gun, thus leading to a complete ban in a lost attempt to minimize criminal ownership of guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top