You'd rather be shot dead with a gun than hit with a cricket bat? You're a loony.
No, but since criminals already have guns, I'd rather shoot back.
In a fight, I'd rather take my chances against someone with a bat than a gun. And, no, I don't want to walk around armed all the time myself, thank you very much.
Well, you're free to do so. You shouldn't make me take the chances you want to take, though. If you don't want to be armed, don't be. I will still carry my pistol, and I'm still going to use it if it is needed. Be sure to tell me how it goes if you ever get attacked by multiple assailants.
You only need guns to defend yourself when (a) everyone else has guns and (b) civilisation has collapsed.
No, not really. A group of men trying to rape my wife are going to get shot, whether armed or not. A thief that breaks into my house will be shot, armed or not, and any group of punks that threatens me with a knife or any other object that might harm me is going to get shot. I don't need them to be armed to defend myself with deadly force. The point is taking the advantage. I'm not about making this a fair fight.
I was referring to the AR-15, as the gun you want to outlaw. You're not going to get killed by one, as for France, who the hell cares? They're not exactly a model to follow. They also force you to disclose encryption keys because you "might be a pedo." So excuse me if I don't think of France as the model nation.
Oh, I see... you don't register every car you buy?
Only if you drive it in public roads.
Though I do like where you are going with that - require someone to take a gun safety class/test before owning a firearm (renewable periodically). Good idea!
Funny, they don't seem to require that to purchase a car. So no, not a good idea. If you're going to carry, though. I agree take a class, and get a license. The government has the right to regulate that when in public, but stay out of my house and what I own.
Seriously? That's the POINT of background checks! What do you think, the seller should just ask the buyer, "hey, are you a felon?" I'm sure that will work...
Sellers already do background checks. Private sales are different, and yes if you are caught selling to a felon, that's a crime. A lot of people do background checks to protect themselves. In either case, criminals sell to each other, and that isn't going to change. Guess what? That's where they get their illegal guns, not gun shows as some people would have you believe.
It may be illegal for a felon to have a firearm, but to be a felon they were already convicted so a lot of good that does...
Well, the thing about that is that it's at least fair. If you've proven you aren't responsible, you should be punished when you try to acquire an item that we know you are not responsible with. You shouldn't be punishing me for what I may do. That's just policing thoughtcrime.
Current security mechanisms are another topic, but I sure as hell support airport security in general.
And I support enforcement of gun laws already on the books. I don't see why I should limit myself for the sake of "security" seeing as I'm not the problem, though.
No, it's not illegal for a "criminal" to have a firearm - that is, unless it's unregistered and that person lives in a place where registration is required!
But it is illegal. If you are committing a crime, which is at the point that you become a criminal, it is another crime to have a gun with you. So yes, it is illegal, and will give harsher punishments.
That is a horrible argument. With that same logic we shouldn't bother with driver's exams or licenses, either, we should allow 13 year olds to buy all of the alcohol and cigarettes they want, and forget any security checks at airports, they are terribly inconvenient for those who aren't trying to hijack a plane.
No, what you are suggesting is having a driver's exam every time you buy a car, borrow, or rent. That's the kind of idiotic thing you are suggesting. As for allowing 13 year olds to buy alcohol and cigarettes, well that's already illegal, we don't require background checks to give one to your friend or spouse. You'll notice that selling to criminals is a crime, and a felon having a firearm is also a crime. As for airport security, well I don't like to be groped or have nude images of me or my wife taken, but I don't know about your tastes. I would rather not.
Law enforcement. That's their job. But only if you actually make it illegal first, duh.
Strange, I could have sworn that criminals having firearms was already illegal. I wonder why the police haven't stopped it. Oh, right because they can't. Maybe if we make it ban it harder it will work, though how you do that is anyone's guess.
That seems like circular logic to me: You're saying that the only people who can argue about whether people should own guns are people who have already decided to own a gun. It's sort of like saying that the only people who can hold a legitimate opinion about the divinity of Jesus are Christians.
No, what it means is that you have no idea what you're arguing about, or why certain firearms are preferred over others. So how in the world, would you know what restrictions do or do not make sense? You don't, because you haven't bothered to study the problem. This would be more akin to letting a creationist be the head of the Texas Board of Education.
Nothing except proper police work, you mean.
Then why is that not good enough now? Oh, right because they don't enforce the law to begin with. This regulation only works for people that submit to it, not criminals.
The government has a clear interest in preventing its citizens from being murdered. Knowing who has large supplies of firearms with large capacity magazines would seem like it might help in that endeavor.
Except that "large capacity magazines" as you seem hell-bent on calling them are not a problem, and they don't get used in murders. And when is the last time criminals registered their stolen firearms? Never, that's when. The government can come and search my house anytime they like if they get a proper warrant. They have no business knowing otherwise. I remember that people on this very site were angry that India would demand the decryption of cellphones, but it's only a violation of privacy when it's something you like, and reasonable when you don't. I didn't murder anyone, nor do I plan to. Leave me and others like me alone.
Actually it only says that there are restrictions to dangerous and unusual weapons. The AR series are neither unusual or dangerous. Furthermore, the case of United States v. Miller states that the second amendment protects the right to weapons in common use by a militia. Seeing as how the organized militia, the National Guard, has access to not only the AR series, but the M16 variant, I'd say that we have a bit of regulation to do away with. Now had we been arguing about RPGs, or mortar shells, you'd have been right, but you're not. Maybe try reading the court cases next time.
I'll have you know my cousin was an avid cricket fan and a junkie. Think before you post. Do you think Britain is the only place in the world that plays the game?
I'm not an American, so thank you for validating my opinions. I am, however, in the process of becoming one, and I rather like it better that I can defend myself. So maybe ask someone who has a bit of brains instead.
Putting a qualifier like "gun related" next to murder is meaningless. Do you care about murders or are murders with things other than guns alright? As for guns making easier to kill, yeah, I agree with you. That's why I have one, because I want to be able to totally stop someone that tries to hurt me or my family. The violence in Mexico is very bad, but you know what, free citizens might have an easier time if they could shoot back against the criminals and corrupt police, but they don't have that right. I for one don't want to live like that, and there's nothing stopping this government from becoming corrupt at any level. I guess it's okay that Britain has more violent crime, at least they aren't killing people with guns.
You might be murdered by a lot of things. I might be hit by a drunk driver. Should we require breathalyzer machines in all automobiles? Should we simply outlaw drinks with strong alcohol content? Why is this less relevant in your agenda than outlawing a firearm which has less chance of being used to murder you than you being struck by lightning. As for how many rounds my pistol carries, that's none of your business. I decide why I need it, and I'll remind you that it's the standard magazine. Why would I want less? Do you want less horsepower in your car? Do you want to be electronically limited to 75mph? Please tell me, I'd love to hear your reasoning against these common sense regulations of alcohol and automobiles.
Why should she have been prohibited from purchasing weapons? She wasn't a criminal. Were her handguns okay, but the AR not? Did we already forget about Virginia Tech?
Except guns are easier to make than bombs, and let's face it, when has that ever worked? People are going to continue killing people. You are only limiting my right to defend myself by telling me I can't do X while criminals will continue to do what they do. Look at Mexico. Complete gun ban, and yet they have massive amounts of murder. Look at Britain. They have a higher violent crime rate than we do, and just because people don't die, doesn't make it less horrible. I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with a gun over having my head bashed in by a junkie with a cricket bat.
Yes, it's easy to sell your own private property to another individual, and it's already illegal to sell to criminals, with steep punishments. I'm not against punishing that crime. I am against you telling me what I can and can't do. Firearms are old tech, anyone can make one with a trip to home depot. They can be stolen too as they often are. You really think gangbangers go to gun shows to get guns? Even then there are background checks for FFLs. And as for explosives, it doesn't take much. You can start with ammonia and go from there, and that's not necessarily a controlled substance. I'd say a flamethrower would be more lethal, but then that's not classified as a weapon, and eve felons can get those.
Yeah, and we already have gun control. And let's face it, when was the last time someone was murdered with a legally owned machine gun? The second amendment of the US constitution guarantees an access to small arms. Read the court cases. If you don't like it, you can always amend the constitution.
Seeing as how you're obviously not a gun owner, I'd say you have no business telling others what they do or do not need. Second, background checks only affect people that are already within the law. What's to stop criminals from continuing to do private sales of illegal firearms? Nothing. Did it stop Adam Lanza? No, because he just took his illegally. I wouldn't give the government the power to track what I do or do not own as far as firearms go. They have no business knowing. I'll stick with my standard capacity magazines, of 17 and 30 rounds, thank you.
This filibuster isn't actually doing anything about the drones. He's just playing it up for public opinion. It's not like he's actually, you know, doing something as far as legislation goes. This is nothing but a publicity stunt as he prepares his run in 2016. Now he can claim to care without doing anything.
Could be an MP4-12C. Still the F1 is nice and all, but for half a million pounds, you don't even get passenger seats. Obviously my beat up '97 SHO is much better and just as exclusive, being the only Taurus variant to have a V8.
Yes, free people making agreements, or entities making agreements anyway. Then why is it that the same kind of people that parrot this always support shit like right to work laws? Aren't contracts of exclusivity also freely entered into?
Slashdot Mirror
You'd rather be shot dead with a gun than hit with a cricket bat? You're a loony.
No, but since criminals already have guns, I'd rather shoot back.
In a fight, I'd rather take my chances against someone with a bat than a gun. And, no, I don't want to walk around armed all the time myself, thank you very much.
Well, you're free to do so. You shouldn't make me take the chances you want to take, though. If you don't want to be armed, don't be. I will still carry my pistol, and I'm still going to use it if it is needed. Be sure to tell me how it goes if you ever get attacked by multiple assailants.
You only need guns to defend yourself when (a) everyone else has guns and (b) civilisation has collapsed.
No, not really. A group of men trying to rape my wife are going to get shot, whether armed or not. A thief that breaks into my house will be shot, armed or not, and any group of punks that threatens me with a knife or any other object that might harm me is going to get shot. I don't need them to be armed to defend myself with deadly force. The point is taking the advantage. I'm not about making this a fair fight.
I was referring to the AR-15, as the gun you want to outlaw. You're not going to get killed by one, as for France, who the hell cares? They're not exactly a model to follow. They also force you to disclose encryption keys because you "might be a pedo." So excuse me if I don't think of France as the model nation.
One assumes that the "bear" part of the second amendment means man-portable, or at least that's how it's been interpreted historically.
Oh, I see... you don't register every car you buy?
Only if you drive it in public roads.
Though I do like where you are going with that - require someone to take a gun safety class/test before owning a firearm (renewable periodically). Good idea!
Funny, they don't seem to require that to purchase a car. So no, not a good idea. If you're going to carry, though. I agree take a class, and get a license. The government has the right to regulate that when in public, but stay out of my house and what I own.
Seriously? That's the POINT of background checks! What do you think, the seller should just ask the buyer, "hey, are you a felon?" I'm sure that will work...
Sellers already do background checks. Private sales are different, and yes if you are caught selling to a felon, that's a crime. A lot of people do background checks to protect themselves. In either case, criminals sell to each other, and that isn't going to change. Guess what? That's where they get their illegal guns, not gun shows as some people would have you believe.
It may be illegal for a felon to have a firearm, but to be a felon they were already convicted so a lot of good that does...
Well, the thing about that is that it's at least fair. If you've proven you aren't responsible, you should be punished when you try to acquire an item that we know you are not responsible with. You shouldn't be punishing me for what I may do. That's just policing thoughtcrime.
Current security mechanisms are another topic, but I sure as hell support airport security in general.
And I support enforcement of gun laws already on the books. I don't see why I should limit myself for the sake of "security" seeing as I'm not the problem, though.
No, it's not illegal for a "criminal" to have a firearm - that is, unless it's unregistered and that person lives in a place where registration is required!
But it is illegal. If you are committing a crime, which is at the point that you become a criminal, it is another crime to have a gun with you. So yes, it is illegal, and will give harsher punishments.
That is a horrible argument. With that same logic we shouldn't bother with driver's exams or licenses, either, we should allow 13 year olds to buy all of the alcohol and cigarettes they want, and forget any security checks at airports, they are terribly inconvenient for those who aren't trying to hijack a plane.
No, what you are suggesting is having a driver's exam every time you buy a car, borrow, or rent. That's the kind of idiotic thing you are suggesting. As for allowing 13 year olds to buy alcohol and cigarettes, well that's already illegal, we don't require background checks to give one to your friend or spouse. You'll notice that selling to criminals is a crime, and a felon having a firearm is also a crime. As for airport security, well I don't like to be groped or have nude images of me or my wife taken, but I don't know about your tastes. I would rather not.
Law enforcement. That's their job. But only if you actually make it illegal first, duh.
Strange, I could have sworn that criminals having firearms was already illegal. I wonder why the police haven't stopped it. Oh, right because they can't. Maybe if we make it ban it harder it will work, though how you do that is anyone's guess.
That seems like circular logic to me: You're saying that the only people who can argue about whether people should own guns are people who have already decided to own a gun. It's sort of like saying that the only people who can hold a legitimate opinion about the divinity of Jesus are Christians.
No, what it means is that you have no idea what you're arguing about, or why certain firearms are preferred over others. So how in the world, would you know what restrictions do or do not make sense? You don't, because you haven't bothered to study the problem. This would be more akin to letting a creationist be the head of the Texas Board of Education.
Nothing except proper police work, you mean.
Then why is that not good enough now? Oh, right because they don't enforce the law to begin with. This regulation only works for people that submit to it, not criminals.
The government has a clear interest in preventing its citizens from being murdered. Knowing who has large supplies of firearms with large capacity magazines would seem like it might help in that endeavor.
Except that "large capacity magazines" as you seem hell-bent on calling them are not a problem, and they don't get used in murders. And when is the last time criminals registered their stolen firearms? Never, that's when. The government can come and search my house anytime they like if they get a proper warrant. They have no business knowing otherwise. I remember that people on this very site were angry that India would demand the decryption of cellphones, but it's only a violation of privacy when it's something you like, and reasonable when you don't. I didn't murder anyone, nor do I plan to. Leave me and others like me alone.
Actually it only says that there are restrictions to dangerous and unusual weapons. The AR series are neither unusual or dangerous. Furthermore, the case of United States v. Miller states that the second amendment protects the right to weapons in common use by a militia. Seeing as how the organized militia, the National Guard, has access to not only the AR series, but the M16 variant, I'd say that we have a bit of regulation to do away with. Now had we been arguing about RPGs, or mortar shells, you'd have been right, but you're not. Maybe try reading the court cases next time.
I'll have you know my cousin was an avid cricket fan and a junkie. Think before you post. Do you think Britain is the only place in the world that plays the game?
I'm not an American, so thank you for validating my opinions. I am, however, in the process of becoming one, and I rather like it better that I can defend myself. So maybe ask someone who has a bit of brains instead.
Putting a qualifier like "gun related" next to murder is meaningless. Do you care about murders or are murders with things other than guns alright? As for guns making easier to kill, yeah, I agree with you. That's why I have one, because I want to be able to totally stop someone that tries to hurt me or my family. The violence in Mexico is very bad, but you know what, free citizens might have an easier time if they could shoot back against the criminals and corrupt police, but they don't have that right. I for one don't want to live like that, and there's nothing stopping this government from becoming corrupt at any level. I guess it's okay that Britain has more violent crime, at least they aren't killing people with guns.
You might be murdered by a lot of things. I might be hit by a drunk driver. Should we require breathalyzer machines in all automobiles? Should we simply outlaw drinks with strong alcohol content? Why is this less relevant in your agenda than outlawing a firearm which has less chance of being used to murder you than you being struck by lightning. As for how many rounds my pistol carries, that's none of your business. I decide why I need it, and I'll remind you that it's the standard magazine. Why would I want less? Do you want less horsepower in your car? Do you want to be electronically limited to 75mph? Please tell me, I'd love to hear your reasoning against these common sense regulations of alcohol and automobiles.
Why should she have been prohibited from purchasing weapons? She wasn't a criminal. Were her handguns okay, but the AR not? Did we already forget about Virginia Tech?
Except guns are easier to make than bombs, and let's face it, when has that ever worked? People are going to continue killing people. You are only limiting my right to defend myself by telling me I can't do X while criminals will continue to do what they do. Look at Mexico. Complete gun ban, and yet they have massive amounts of murder. Look at Britain. They have a higher violent crime rate than we do, and just because people don't die, doesn't make it less horrible. I'm sorry, but I'll take my chances with a gun over having my head bashed in by a junkie with a cricket bat.
Yes, it's easy to sell your own private property to another individual, and it's already illegal to sell to criminals, with steep punishments. I'm not against punishing that crime. I am against you telling me what I can and can't do. Firearms are old tech, anyone can make one with a trip to home depot. They can be stolen too as they often are. You really think gangbangers go to gun shows to get guns? Even then there are background checks for FFLs. And as for explosives, it doesn't take much. You can start with ammonia and go from there, and that's not necessarily a controlled substance. I'd say a flamethrower would be more lethal, but then that's not classified as a weapon, and eve felons can get those.
Yeah, and we already have gun control. And let's face it, when was the last time someone was murdered with a legally owned machine gun? The second amendment of the US constitution guarantees an access to small arms. Read the court cases. If you don't like it, you can always amend the constitution.
Seeing as how you're obviously not a gun owner, I'd say you have no business telling others what they do or do not need. Second, background checks only affect people that are already within the law. What's to stop criminals from continuing to do private sales of illegal firearms? Nothing. Did it stop Adam Lanza? No, because he just took his illegally. I wouldn't give the government the power to track what I do or do not own as far as firearms go. They have no business knowing. I'll stick with my standard capacity magazines, of 17 and 30 rounds, thank you.
You honestly think people don't use bombs because they're illegal? That's rich. I guess we should ban murder, and then no one would do it.
This filibuster isn't actually doing anything about the drones. He's just playing it up for public opinion. It's not like he's actually, you know, doing something as far as legislation goes. This is nothing but a publicity stunt as he prepares his run in 2016. Now he can claim to care without doing anything.
And you better have ten years of experience too!
Sure, because it's not like the Gilded age ever happened or anything.
He already did that. It's called emacs.
Yes, but no one actually fits in them.
Could be an MP4-12C. Still the F1 is nice and all, but for half a million pounds, you don't even get passenger seats. Obviously my beat up '97 SHO is much better and just as exclusive, being the only Taurus variant to have a V8.
Yes, free people making agreements, or entities making agreements anyway. Then why is it that the same kind of people that parrot this always support shit like right to work laws? Aren't contracts of exclusivity also freely entered into?