Does Obama want to ban guns and rifles?
09-24-2008, 04:16 PM
#76
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
even if they are around in greater numbers, their use is much less.
and again, accidents vs homicides. deaths in cars vs deaths by car, accidents prevail by a LONG shot.
Guns? Deaths from homicides FAR outnumber accidental deaths by a gun.
Why? cause people primarily use guns for killing people whereas people use cars primarily to get around, and use them they do by the millions everyday.
and again, accidents vs homicides. deaths in cars vs deaths by car, accidents prevail by a LONG shot.
Guns? Deaths from homicides FAR outnumber accidental deaths by a gun.
Why? cause people primarily use guns for killing people whereas people use cars primarily to get around, and use them they do by the millions everyday.
Not all homicides are criminal in nature.
Cars kill more people per year than guns, yet no one calls for banning the ownership of cars.
09-24-2008, 04:29 PM
#77
Free speech isn't free. It's a ****ing joke. You can't march or protest if you want or anywhere you want. You can't assmble anywhere you want. It's very evident now that the time may come when you couldn't practice the faith you may want. You can't just say whatever you want either cause other people have the right to not hear it apparently... I mean otherwise we'd have people yelling and screaming and playing loud music whenever they wanted... there are restrictions to all of these today, so to pose your question as an "what if" doesn't really work. It's already this way.
However, with firearm ownership, my simply owning ANY kind of firearm infringes on NO ONE's rights. How I use that arm certainly might, but ownership, in and of itself, does not.
As for what constitutes an "arm," that depends. I can only assume that at the time the Constitution was drafted the drafters meant the civilians were allowed to keep and bear any and all arms available to the military. However, now that technology has allowed for the creation of smart bombs, computer-guided missiles, tactical nukes, etc., I'll admit that a line does have to be drawn somewhere, but it sure as hell isn't at the AR-15/M-16.
Agreed. So we want to have auto weapons and hard bullets why? so we can take on tanks and soldiers if we have to. Makes sense, except that I doubt many Americans would know how to fire a gun properly and with good aim, clean and maintain that firearm and also know more military strategy than a government trained army. So guns are only really good enough to help us defend ourselves since we definitely failed to train and uphold the militia.
Besides, are you actually going to tell me that you think a full auto rifle is somehow more dangerous than the semi-automatic version of that same rifle? That rounds marked "armor piercing" are somehow more deadly that traditional rounds that would nonetheless pierce armor? Nonsense.
________
IOLITE PORTABLE VAPORIZER
Last edited by kyoung05; 03-30-2011 at 08:13 AM.
09-24-2008, 04:42 PM
#78
Forget about the purpose of guns vs. the purpose of cars. Guns are more important than cars - if we could only choose one, everyone should choose the gun. Besides, there is no mention of a right to transportation in our Constitution. Hell, even the CA DMV manual says driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is not.
________
RUSSIAN COOKING
Last edited by kyoung05; 03-30-2011 at 08:13 AM.
09-24-2008, 04:45 PM
#79
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Right, what you're talking about is the distinction between political speech vs. commercial speech, and the time/place/manner restrictions placed upon certain types of speech. I understand that "speech" isn't always free. However, if you read some of the cases that determined why certain speech is restricted, you'll begin to see that they are usually predicated upon the rationale that you have a right to free speech, until it begins to intrude on another individual's rights. For instance, yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is prohibited, because your right to yell "Fire" intrudes on the other patrons' right to safety.
However, with firearm ownership, my simply owning ANY kind of firearm infringes on NO ONE's rights. How I use that arm certainly might, but ownership, in and of itself, does not.
As for what constitutes an "arm," that depends. I can only assume that at the time the Constitution was drafted the drafters meant the civilians were allowed to keep and bear any and all arms available to the military. However, now that technology has allowed for the creation of smart bombs, computer-guided missiles, tactical nukes, etc., I'll admit that a line does have to be drawn somewhere, but it sure as hell isn't at the AR-15/M-16.
So, since most people wouldn't know how to use a firearm, the rest of us should be limited even further? I don't follow. Besides, roughly 50% of American households have at least 1 firearm. How do you know that "many" Americans wouldn't know how to use a firearm properly? Many Californians? Maybe. Many Americans? Not sure about that one.
Besides, are you actually going to tell me that you think a full auto rifle is somehow more dangerous than the semi-automatic version of that same rifle? That rounds marked "armor piercing" are somehow more deadly that traditional rounds that would nonetheless pierce armor? Nonsense.
However, with firearm ownership, my simply owning ANY kind of firearm infringes on NO ONE's rights. How I use that arm certainly might, but ownership, in and of itself, does not.
As for what constitutes an "arm," that depends. I can only assume that at the time the Constitution was drafted the drafters meant the civilians were allowed to keep and bear any and all arms available to the military. However, now that technology has allowed for the creation of smart bombs, computer-guided missiles, tactical nukes, etc., I'll admit that a line does have to be drawn somewhere, but it sure as hell isn't at the AR-15/M-16.
So, since most people wouldn't know how to use a firearm, the rest of us should be limited even further? I don't follow. Besides, roughly 50% of American households have at least 1 firearm. How do you know that "many" Americans wouldn't know how to use a firearm properly? Many Californians? Maybe. Many Americans? Not sure about that one.
Besides, are you actually going to tell me that you think a full auto rifle is somehow more dangerous than the semi-automatic version of that same rifle? That rounds marked "armor piercing" are somehow more deadly that traditional rounds that would nonetheless pierce armor? Nonsense.
So I'll just agree that it's your right and all, but respectfully disagree about the degree of needing Automatic guns and harder penetration rounds, or even making them available.
Cause I know how easy it is to buy a gun off the street, i've done it in HS, and it's stupid easy.
Restriction is not the answer, but neither is easy access.
09-24-2008, 04:48 PM
#80
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Are you saying that the scope of our rights should be determined by what criminals (who don't follow the law) would or wouldn't do? Should all of our rights be based on this rationale? Should our level of free speech be determined by what a few crazy people would say? Should our freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures be predicated on what some criminals may be hiding in their homes? I sure as hell don't think so.
Forget about the purpose of guns vs. the purpose of cars. Guns are more important than cars - if we could only choose one, everyone should choose the gun. Besides, there is no mention of a right to transportation in our Constitution. Hell, even the CA DMV manual says driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is not.
Forget about the purpose of guns vs. the purpose of cars. Guns are more important than cars - if we could only choose one, everyone should choose the gun. Besides, there is no mention of a right to transportation in our Constitution. Hell, even the CA DMV manual says driving is a privilege. Gun ownership is not.
Hey, my family has our firearms, and I'll use should I need it. I'm not afraid to admit that. I guess I just don't have the desire for the more exotic stuff.
09-24-2008, 05:24 PM
#81
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Agreed again, but my point is to counter Paul's comment about how deadly cars are. I wanted to make the point that those are indeed accidents whereas homicides are the majority of deaths by bullets.
Hey, my family has our firearms, and I'll use should I need it. I'm not afraid to admit that. I guess I just don't have the desire for the more exotic stuff.
Hey, my family has our firearms, and I'll use should I need it. I'm not afraid to admit that. I guess I just don't have the desire for the more exotic stuff.
And please remember, your desires should have no bearing on what my desires should be.
09-24-2008, 05:48 PM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
The 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
By saying that a necessity clause should be read into the 2nd amendment is to say that such a clause should be read into all of the fundamental rights. What if only "necessary" speech was free? What if you were only granted a jury trial in a criminal case if the government deemed it necessary? What if cruel and unusual punishments were allowed, if necessary?
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
I think you missed the whole intent of the 2nd amendment. They didn't throw in the word "militia" just cuz.
I think we're all lucky to own a bunch of guns. But I wouldn't feel lucky if I knew Joe ******** could walk into Wal*Mart and come out 5 minutes later with an AR15. Somehow I don't get a warm and fuzzy that anything good will come from that.
Easy access to most fire arms has got to be more inherently dangerous than any current gun control law in the US. That's all I'm trying to get across. That, and for whatever reason I don't understand the reasoning behind why people find it reasonable for virtually anyone with a clean record to have unlimited access to fully auto rifles/uzis.
I'm not scared of my government coming after me, I'm going down in a blaze of glory if need be. It's the idiot/angry gun owners with a small armory like they're going to be part of the next Terminator movie.
09-24-2008, 06:04 PM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
But if people are so insistent on having any weapon they choose, the safest way to adhear to that would be uber back ground checks and a few days waiting period. That way people with "iffy" backgrounds will have to resort to the black market which will never go away, and anyone purchasing an "assault weapon" with the intent of mallace has a few days to cool off or rethink the situation first.
I'm not necessarilly for banning fully auto weapons, but people's only real reason for dropping the ban seems to be "cause I want one" since it's only really practical for killing people quick and easy (barring the "what if 12 robbers break in all wearing body armor, the AK-47 and armor piercing rounds would be the only thing to save me" scenarios). I doubt most of you are part of an actual militia or actually expect the govt to break down your door and steal your CD collection (or whatever it is the g-men would want anything to do with you). This is more about what you want more than any other reason.
09-24-2008, 07:09 PM
#84
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Sorry, homie, it's you that has missed the intent of the 2nd Amendment, which by the way, covers two separate & distinct topics, the most important being the individual right to own arms.
Try reading it like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
And like this:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. .
Very simple and very easy to understand the intent of this amendment.
The anti gun community has tried for years using the BS argument that gun ownership is a group right rather than an individual right.
Try reading it like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
And like this:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. .
Very simple and very easy to understand the intent of this amendment.
The anti gun community has tried for years using the BS argument that gun ownership is a group right rather than an individual right.
09-24-2008, 07:20 PM
#85
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Sorry, homie, it's you that has missed the intent of the 2nd Amendment, which by the way, covers two separate & distinct topics, the most important being the individual right to own arms.
Try reading it like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
And like this:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. .
Very simple and very easy to understand the intent of this amendment.
The anti gun community has tried for years using the BS argument that gun ownership is a group right rather than an individual right.
Try reading it like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
And like this:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. .
Very simple and very easy to understand the intent of this amendment.
The anti gun community has tried for years using the BS argument that gun ownership is a group right rather than an individual right.
You just put a period where there was a comma. Talk about rewriting history. Lots of statements look different when you change them.
Who's the one using the BS argument? I'm not the one doing the creative grammar here. Any other part of the constitution you would like to change for your benefit while you're at it?
Last edited by Superglue WRX; 09-24-2008 at 07:22 PM.
09-24-2008, 07:26 PM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 103
Car Info: '02 silver WRX sedan
I do not know a single person that owns a gun. Every single person I know (of driving age) has at least one car (and/or motorcycle).
Maybe you know something we don't, but we all seem to be getting along fine without the all-important gun. The gun isn't going to get me to work, to the store, to the hospital (well, maybe the hospital), school, etc.
Even in law enforcement, lets call 911 and see who arrives at the scene first: the cop with the gun or the car...
09-24-2008, 09:58 PM
#87
Depends on what you mean by "important".
I do not know a single person that owns a gun. Every single person I know (of driving age) has at least one car (and/or motorcycle).
Maybe you know something we don't, but we all seem to be getting along fine without the all-important gun. The gun isn't going to get me to work, to the store, to the hospital (well, maybe the hospital), school, etc.
Even in law enforcement, lets call 911 and see who arrives at the scene first: the cop with the gun or the car...
I do not know a single person that owns a gun. Every single person I know (of driving age) has at least one car (and/or motorcycle).
Maybe you know something we don't, but we all seem to be getting along fine without the all-important gun. The gun isn't going to get me to work, to the store, to the hospital (well, maybe the hospital), school, etc.
Even in law enforcement, lets call 911 and see who arrives at the scene first: the cop with the gun or the car...
________
******* vids
Last edited by kyoung05; 03-30-2011 at 08:13 AM.
09-24-2008, 11:03 PM
#88
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
09-25-2008, 04:57 AM
#89
Registered User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yea, you like my JDM backside. Quit staring ^^
Posts: 3,250
Car Info: A crazy ass wagon ! Voltex and 18x9.5 +22 FTW !
Very true... but is a 30 round clip,fully automatic machine gun really needed???? i own a shotgun myself so im all for peoples rights to bear arms.... but...are ak47's and m4's really needed for home protection?
09-25-2008, 07:50 AM
#90
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
I don't understand it?????
You just put a period where there was a comma. Talk about rewriting history. Lots of statements look different when you change them.
Who's the one using the BS argument? I'm not the one doing the creative grammar here. Any other part of the constitution you would like to change for your benefit while you're at it?
You just put a period where there was a comma. Talk about rewriting history. Lots of statements look different when you change them.
Who's the one using the BS argument? I'm not the one doing the creative grammar here. Any other part of the constitution you would like to change for your benefit while you're at it?
The original intent has not been changed by adding the period.
I broke up one sentence into two for ease of reading.
Bust out your 5th grade grammar book & diagram the sentence for yourself.