unless i need a gun right away to kill my cheating wife or make a quick $100 from robbing a bank to buy crack why would a law abiding citizen need his gun right NOW instead of waiting 3 days as NC law states.

12/12/2007 6:21:10 PM

HUR, yes, you should be able to mount one of those on your car if you so chose. However, you also should be liable for your actions while driving said car. Crazy idea, I know...

Quote :

"burro, I dont think anyone would disagree with some form of tests or background checks before someone is given the priviledge of owning a potentially life ending equipment."

Well, you are wrong. I would disagree with it. And, even if no one disagreed with it, it doesn't change the fact that is unConstitutional. If everyone agreed that it was OK to deny blacks the right to vote, despite Constitutional mandates that that not occur, would it be OK for Congress to come out and deny blacks the right to vote?

Quote :

"what part of that process would prevent a law-abiding citizen from getting a gun?"

That is the end result of the process. While it does not explicitly prevent gun ownership, its effects are the same. And such an effect amounts to an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms. IIRC, the Supreme Court has ruled in several instances that de facto results of a law are just as important as de jure results.

Quote :

"Why argue against it for guns?"

Oh, maybe this damned thing called the 2nd Amendment, maybe?

Quote :

"It seems reasonable that one show basic knowledge of the gun and laws and a background check to make sure you dont have 5 priors for robbery before you leave the gun show. Its common sense"

Sure. It also seems reasonable to ask that someone wishing to vote show basic knowledge of the candidates before voting. But that doesn't change the fact that a poll test is illegal and wrong. So it is with what you propose for gun ownership.

Quote :

"I also find it hard to justify assualt weapons and what someone would need with them legally."

Just because you can't find a valid reason for yourself to own such a weapon doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives people the right to own such a weapon. Moreover, just because you can't find a valid justification for something to be "legal" doesn't mean that that thing should be illegal. You must have a valid, Constitutional basis for something to be illegal.

Quote :

"unless i need a gun right away to kill my cheating wife or make a quick $100 from robbing a bank to buy crack why would a law abiding citizen need his gun right NOW instead of waiting 3 days as NC law states."

Again, what valid, Constitutional reason do you have for infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms?

Quote :

"I suppose the rational being: criminals will get the guns they want one way or another. so why not allow others to get any gun they want too, to defend themselves against the criminals."

Really, that's not too far from the truth. The net effect of denying weapons to law-abiding citizens is that it enables criminals to more easily commit crimes. One thing I am arguing based on this shooting incident, alone, is the powerful effect that allowing citizens to bear arms can have on the outcome of a crime in progress. Plus, as someone else as already alluded, I'd argue that the mere knowledge that the populace is armed would decrease the incidence rate of such shootings, being that it would give the normal perpetrator of the crime far more time to pause and think about his plan, knowing that there would be armed citizens that he would have to deal with.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2007 6:23:58 PM

^burro, then why have a driver license test?

And comparing voting to buying a gun is a little weak. Its pretty damn hard to papercut someone to death.

Im for the 2nd admin. However, common sense should play a part.

Agent, I agree that criminals will find a gun one way or another. But, honestly, some arent the brightest bulb in the bunch. Why make it easy for them? I really think buying a gun should be harder than buying an apple. I dunno, maybe thats just the common sense in me talking.

12/12/2007 6:30:32 PM

Quote :

"burro, then why have a driver license test?"

Have you found anything in the Constitution that precludes the States from mandating a test in order to get such a license?

Quote :

"And comparing voting to buying a gun is a little weak. Its pretty damn hard to papercut someone to death."

Why is it weak? Are they both not Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights?

Quote :

"Im for the 2nd admin. However, common sense should play a part. "

Unfortunately, "common sense" is subjective and the definition of it changes ass time goes by. If the Constitution said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for common sense restrictions," then you might have a point. However, the Constitution doesn't say that. Instead, it says the right shall not be infringed. That's pretty damned explicit.

Quote :

"Agent, I agree that criminals will find a gun one way or another. But, honestly, some arent the brightest bulb in the bunch. Why make it easy for them?"

No, why make it hard for the average person to obtain a weapon? Why not allow the average person the ability to serve as a deterrent to the dimmer bulbs in society improperly using weapons? In this case, we have proof that the average citizen produces better results at limiting the effects and extent of a crime in progress than law enforcement. This way was leaps and bounds more effective and, best of all, it was free! Cheap and more effective? It's a winning combination.

12/12/2007 6:38:41 PM

Quote :

"If the Constitution said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for common sense restrictions," then you might have a point. However, the Constitution doesn't say that. Instead, it says the right shall not be infringed. That's pretty damned explicit."

You do realize the Founding Fathers also allowed for the Constitution to be amended, right? Common sense restrictions apply to all parts of the Constitution if there is a big enough reason.

12/12/2007 6:45:09 PM

given that I am talking about the "2nd Amendment," I'd say that I quite obviously recognize that fact. Are there any amendments to the constitution which allow such an infringement on the right to bear arms? If not, then what is your point in disagreeing with the common understanding of "Constitutional rights" meaning "rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments?"

12/12/2007 6:50:30 PM

So what's the difference between changing that amendment and simply putting more restrictions on guns. I guarantee you that most of the gun laws in the country would stand up to a constitutional amendment vote.

12/12/2007 6:55:39 PM

I can also make a blanket statement with no backing. I guarantee you that an amendment to rule you an idiot would stand up to a national vote. See how easy that was?

But, why isn't a law as binding as an Amendment? Well, mainly because the Constitution SAYS SO. And it makes sense for it to be so. The Constitution and Amendments serve as the basis for all of our laws. It only makes sense that a law should not be able to usurp the Constitution. Otherwise Congress could pass a law declaring that the President no longer held any veto power, and it would be valid. Do you think that is something that should be allowed?

12/12/2007 6:57:40 PM

i love it that the original point of this thread was eyedrb trying to throw the 2nd Amendment in the faces of gun-control proponents about how less gun-control is better. but it has not turned into an argument between eyedrb and aaronburro about how strictly the 2nd Amendment should actually be enforced, and eyedrb is coming across as a gun-control-freak now

12/12/2007 7:01:58 PM

irony is a bitch, aint it? But, to be fair, in the past century, Congress has done a damn good job of pulling the US away from its founding documents by a method of baby steps. Baby steps often seem inconsequential on their own, but just remember the old adage: "pennies add up to dollars."

12/12/2007 7:04:23 PM

Your analogies are spot on today.

Quote :

"OK, then. Tell me this: Given that you are homosexual, when are you going to tell your parents that you are gay. don't bother telling me that you're not a homosexual. Just tell me when you are going to let your folks know about being a fudge packer. I don't want to hear one word about how you might not actually be gay. And every time you try to protest your heterosexuality, I'm going to tell you to stop evading the question. After all, why wouldn't you want to answer the question? it's just a question, after all. When are you going to tell your parents that you like having a hard cock shoved up your ass?"

Quote :

"Sure. It also seems reasonable to ask that someone wishing to vote show basic knowledge of the candidates before voting. But that doesn't change the fact that a poll test is illegal and wrong. So it is with what you propose for gun ownership."

Quote :

"I can also make a blanket statement with no backing. I guarantee you that an amendment to rule you an idiot would stand up to a national vote. See how easy that was?"

^^ He just doesn't know how to win an argument.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 7:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2007 7:04:38 PM

Quote :

"i love it that the original point of this thread was eyedrb trying to throw the 2nd Amendment in the faces of gun-control proponents about how less gun-control is better. but it has not turned into an argument between eyedrb and aaronburro about how strictly the 2nd Amendment should actually be enforced, and eyedrb is coming across as a gun-control-freak now "

Im not sure gun control freak is the right word. I started this to point out how anytime someone gets shot there is a post on here about gun control. In this case, I believe the 2nd worked and she was able to defend herself and save additional lives.

I think ive been pretty consistant in my belief that people should be allowed to have guns. I also think they should have restrictions on this deadly weapon. I think you can apply common sense to this issue. I think my views are pretty normal. Im not for outlawing all guns or simply letting every nut job unlimited access to anything that shoots. The fact that its harder to get a prescription antibotic than an uzi is an issue.

12/12/2007 8:34:49 PM

Quote :

"In this case, I believe the 2nd worked and she was able to defend herself and save additional lives."

She was a security guard, she was doing her jobs. Do you praise the second amendment every time a cop shoots someone?

12/12/2007 8:40:43 PM

^"Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service."

Yes she volunteers for this. She isnt a rent-a-cop. She is a member of the church and volunteers to guard it. So a bit different than a cop dont you think?

Ill get this BS from monkey, and burro will be upset she had to get a license. hahah, I just cant win.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 8:47:43 PM

Quote :

"To prevent any random gangster from packing heat w/o any kind of consequence if they are found in say....... a bank."

Just like such laws do now? Like the law which prohibits carrying of firearms any private place where they are prohibited prevented the kid from going to a mall to blow away some shoppers? Look, I have no problem with competency tests for shooters (paid for by the government of course) and I have no problems with instant "yes/no" background checks under which no further records are kept. But to say that such laws are keeping criminals from committing criminal acts is laughable.

Here is a good example, in durham, you need to fill out an application, have three notarized character witnesses, finger prints and head to the courthouse between 9 and 4 with $5 just to get the permit to purchase a gun. Or, you can go downtown and buy one from someone in a back alley.

If you're planning on robbing a bank, which option are you going to choose?

Quote :

"I do not have a problem with the woman having a gun. I just find it odd she was "on patrol" carrying a gun during church service."

So if someone gunned some people down in a church in raleigh, hadn't been caught and you were on your way to church in durham and had a gun, you wouldn't think about carrying?

Quote :

"I also find it hard to justify assualt weapons and what someone would need with them legallly."

The problem with that argument (aside from the fact that we all know how well the AWB defined "assault' weapons) is that such an argument, once allowed, can be used to continualy whittle away at the guns you own.

Quote :

"what part of that process would prevent a law-abiding citizen from getting a gun?"

What part of teaching about god "establishes" a religion? What part of fining broadcasters for "offensive" content prevents them from broadcasting that content? In this country we recognize a concept called a chilling effect, and over burdensome laws about firearms are indeed a chilling effect.

Quote :

"unless i need a gun right away to kill my cheating wife or make a quick $100 from robbing a bank to buy crack why would a law abiding citizen need his gun right NOW instead of waiting 3 days as NC law states."

How about the abused woman who just realized when her estranged husband smashed her car windshield that a restraining order is just a piece of paper?

Quote :

"And comparing voting to buying a gun is a little weak. Its pretty damn hard to papercut someone to death. "

But as you are often quick to point out, it's real easy to tax them to death. Why not make a requirement that before you can vote, you have to demonstrate a basic competence in economics?

Quote :

"You do realize the Founding Fathers also allowed for the Constitution to be amended, right? Common sense restrictions apply to all parts of the Constitution if there is a big enough reason."

So amend the constitution, you don't do an end run around it. Hell even the fundies were able to get people to talk about amending the constitution over gay marriages

Quote :

"So what's the difference between changing that amendment and simply putting more restrictions on guns. I guarantee you that most of the gun laws in the country would stand up to a constitutional amendment vote."

Indeed, why amend the constitution when you could just make it law that darkies don't get the same rights as white people. Why amend the constitution when you could just declare the the president is president for life. Long live king W.

12/12/2007 8:50:07 PM

1337, Ill give you the slippery slope on assualt weapons concern. But it is hard to justify what you would need with one. Can you admit that? Im not talking about making laws but why would a common citizen need one?

And on the voting thing. Everyone in this country has a right to choose thier representative. While overall, it might make us a better country to have a test. I dont think its right to exclude thier right to vote. Where this differs from guns, in my opinion, is that some nut job voting for pamela anderson for president vs the same nut who decides to shoot thier eye doctor because I wore red today. One can have a much greater affect on my life and yours as well.

12/12/2007 9:05:48 PM

Define assault weapon for me, and I'll tell you what you might want with it. And before you do, you might want to watch this:

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

Especially note that the gun he modifies at the end, would under the old AWB, be illegal.

As far as the random nut job, no reasonable restriction on the purchase of a firearm would prevent him from shooting the eye doctor unless they had already done something criminal or insane which would already be on record and captured under an instant background check.

12/12/2007 9:28:07 PM

Quote :

"But it is hard to justify what you would need with one. Can you admit that? Im not talking about making laws but why would a common citizen need one?"

You may be able to justify that someone doesn't need such a gun. But, the 2nd Amendment does not require that a person establish a "need" for a gun.

12/12/2007 9:49:37 PM

Quote :

"Have you found anything in the Constitution that precludes the States from mandating a test in order to get such a license?"

well the founding fathers did not have to worry about automobiles in the 1700's. The constitution also says that slavery is ok and black people count as 3/5 of a vote.

No one here is advocating to banning guns, just get some common sense.

Maybe if one of the 16 yr olds at Columbine was fulfilling his constitutional right to bear arms he could have stopped the massacre before it killed as many people as it did .

What about felons with guns? If I shoot someone and get out of jail 30 years later should I be able to get a gun. Should their be no check to make sure someone with a mental illness does not just walk into Dick's Sporting Goods and grabs a 12 gauge along with 1000 rounds of ammo.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 10:43 PM. Reason : l]

12/12/2007 10:42:19 PM

1337, thank you for the video. It was very informative. Is the ak-47 illegal? The host talks about it being full automatic, but later a police chief talks about how they have never had an altered ak47 to fully automatic. I dont understand.

I guess in my mind what I would consider an assualt rifle, would be something fully automatic, easy to handle and with a large capacity for bullets. Thats just how I define it with my limited knowledge of guns. I cant fathom a situation you would need to shoot 100 rounds a min, or whatever. You see what im getting at?

Burro, I understand your point. Im moving past the 2nd and asking you what would you need with a gun like that. You seem to be against any restrictions. 37 mentioned a background check catching mental health/criminals.. I think that is a great step, and im glad that is in place. Are you against something like that? By holding to the leter of the law, I seem to think you would be agaisnt it.

Btw, do you see the difference between a MR person of 41 years of age voting vs. getting a gun?

12/12/2007 10:42:46 PM

AK-47's are legal. You just can't have them unless they are modified to prevent fully automatic fire. What reason does anyone even for self-defense need a full automatic??? Not even police carry fully automatic weapons unless for the most extreme circumstances.

12/12/2007 10:45:42 PM

^thanks for clearing that up. So are any fully automatic weapons legal? What about that big ass gun HUR had a picture of? That legal? If so what for

12/12/2007 10:56:10 PM

Quote :

"well the founding fathers did not have to worry about automobiles in the 1700's. The constitution also says that slavery is ok and black people count as 3/5 of a vote."

Yes, but they did have modes of travel that were similar and they made no attempt to mandate or restrict testing or licensing for such vehicles.
And, the Constitution was amended to take those other parts out. what is your point?

Quote :

"Maybe if one of the 16 yr olds at Columbine was fulfilling his constitutional right to bear arms he could have stopped the massacre before it killed as many people as it did"

Or a teacher.

Quote :

"What about felons with guns? If I shoot someone and get out of jail 30 years later should I be able to get a gun."

That is actually a good question, and it is one I've pondered a bit on my own. I haven't come up with a satisfactory answer to it, really.

Quote :

"Should their be no check to make sure someone with a mental illness does not just walk into Dick's Sporting Goods and grabs a 12 gauge along with 1000 rounds of ammo."

Ideally there would also be random people around town packing heat as well, and they would quickly put an end to such a fool's shenanigans.

Quote :

"Burro, I understand your point. Im moving past the 2nd and asking you what would you need with a gun like that."

I don't think you do understand my point. Because if you did, you wouldn't be saying the second sentence there.

Quote :

"You seem to be against any restrictions. 37 mentioned a background check catching mental health/criminals.. I think that is a great step, and im glad that is in place. Are you against something like that?"

On the surface, yes, I would be against those restrictions, mainly because they are very subjective. "Mental health" can very easily be manipulated to mean a lot of things. And if someone is truly mentally unhealthy, then why should he be wandering out and about anyway, you know? As for criminals, I've already touched on that for felons, but for the "common criminal" who is guilty of things less than felonies, I see no reason to restrict his rights. The knowledge that there is an armed populace around him is plenty sufficient to deter him from using a weapon foolishly.

Quote :

"Btw, do you see the difference between a MR person of 41 years of age voting vs. getting a gun?"

Constitutionally speaking, no, I don't. Retardation is a tricky issue, though, from a Constitutional perspective, because the rules don't seem to apply. However, the concern over a retard with a gun is hardly a basis for broad gun control laws, wouldn't you agree?

Quote :

"What reason does anyone even for self-defense need a full automatic???"

Again, why does a need for the weapon matter? Nowhere does the Constitution state that there must exist a need in order for the right to be granted.

12/12/2007 11:02:11 PM

Clearly George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were thinking ahead. They thought it to be essential as a free american to possess a firearm invented 200 years in the future capable of firing off 600 rounds a min. Screw it, the 2nd Amendment is protecting my right to possess a M61 Vulcan



mounted onto my hood. I may have to defend myself against a mob of zombies coming at me. With a fire rate 2500 rpm with .6 calibre shells the Vulcan is essential to safeguarding my civil rights and liberty.

Quote :

"Ideally there would also be random people around town packing heat as well, and they would quickly put an end to such a fool's shenanigans."

i'm excited aaronburro land sounds like the wild west.

aaronburro for consistency i hope your ideological platforms supports the absolute end of the war on drugs.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 11:07 PM. Reason : l]

12/12/2007 11:05:14 PM

Quote :

"And, the Constitution was amended to take those other parts out. what is your point?"

The Constitution can be amended to take out the part about guns too.

Quote :

"Or a teacher."

The problem at Columbine was the Klebold and Harris had guns, not that a teacher didn't. For all your drolling about saying it was the people and not the guns, Columbine would have turned out much differently had it been with clubs or knives.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 11:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 11:08:58 PM

Quote :

"the priviledge of owning a potentially life ending equipment."

A hammer is potentially life-ending.. so is a nail-gun. Do we need a license for these? The Constitution doesn't recognize a "priviledge" of self-protection. It acknowledges our right to it...and then specifically prohibits the gov't from infringing on that right.

Anti-gun folks love the "Why can't I own a tank/Bazooka" argument. Look, they're already banned. What the the hard-core gun control people are going after are hand-guns. Making it harder for everyone to get a handgun only empowers those who aren't going to follow the rules anyway.

12/12/2007 11:10:33 PM

^burro can you at least admit we've come up with some pretty sick shit since the constitution. Why shouldnt we have cruise missles on the house as well? Where does it end?

You "perfect world" has everyone with a firearm and dealing with the situation as it is needed. Right? You've mentioned it a couple of times. I dont find that very realistic, but if that was the case would you not want those people to be trained? I do think it is nice that citizen's do carry guns and are able to defend themselves and others when needed. I also have concerns about ANYONE getting thier hands on weapons and snapping to judgements.

For example. Say you shot the kid shooting people at the mall. I turn the corner and see you shooting the kid. Now I shoot you. Justice? I go to jail? What do you do in that situation?

I dunno, but this sure is a tricky issue. Im enjoying the conversation, its very informative.

Well if you restict a MR person from owning a gun, then I kinda got you on blindly following the 2nd. But the question I asked was, whether you saw the difference in that same person voting vs. owning a gun.

12/12/2007 11:13:10 PM

^^ I agree to a point. Handguns should not be banned. However, like obtaining a drivers license i see no problem with ensuring people are educated in use of firearms and are not predisposed to committing gun violence. A 2 time DUI convict usually will lose driving privileges so i see nothing wrong with preventing certain people from owning guns. Yes they may still get one via blackmarket but much like driving w/o a license getting caught results in much harsher punishment.

Quote :

"The problem at Columbine was the Klebold and Harris had guns, not that a teacher didn't. For all your drolling about saying it was the people and not the guns, Columbine would have turned out much differently had it been with clubs or knives."

Ironically when the revolver was invented in the 1800's it was dubbed teh "equalizer". Essentially any man was an equal if armed and not at the whim of the strongest and most powerful person within a community.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 11:15 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 11:18 PM. Reason : l]

12/12/2007 11:14:56 PM

that's not ironic

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM. Reason : carry on]

12/12/2007 11:16:37 PM

scuba, I think if a teacher was allowed to have a gun it could have saved lives. You will never get rid of all the guns. Preaching that is like the repubs preaching abstinence. Its not going to happen, move on.

Earthdogg, im not an anti-gun person. But the nail gun and hammer were not designed to kill things. And I totally agree, if you ban all guns only the law abiding citizens will follow it. That will lead to disaster. Look at DC.

12/12/2007 11:18:38 PM

Quote :

"..like obtaining a drivers license i see no problem with ensuring people are educated in use of firearms and are not predisposed to committing gun violence"

Hur, like many licensing arguments..it does sound reasonable. But the licensing procedure is too open to political manipulation.

Take for example when I got my permit for a pistol. At the time Sheriff John Baker was hardly a pro-gun proponent. He alone got to decide the "licensing" procedure for Wake County.

He required that you bring along someone not related to you to "vouch" for your character. So basically you couldn't exercise your 2nd amendment right unless you have a friend.

This is what we're worried about... subjective, political roadblocks by individuals to our right to self-protection. Guarantee to me that this kind of silly stuff wouldn't happen, and I'd support licensing.

12/13/2007 1:34:53 AM

i didnt read all this shit on the second page but...

in the interview she sounded like she was scared shitless and completely incompetent in the situation if it wasnt for God who helped her.

and someone said she was an ex-cop? WTF

she sounded like my mom talking about guns and shooting people in the interview.

12/13/2007 8:30:00 AM

Where are we going to draw the line?? We can't have the Wild West with no regulation and just run around with my 12-gauge everywhere I go.

EarthDogg

Can you help me install



into my car

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason : a]

12/13/2007 10:11:06 AM

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 10:27 AM. Reason : fff]

12/13/2007 10:25:31 AM

^
One idea is to work through the insurance industry.

Mainstream gun owners who follow the law would probably support the idea that you are legally responsible with what you do with a weapon. That means carrying enough liability insurance to cover any mistakes you make. The insurance would be based partly on weapon type. A machine gun would carry a much higher premium than a handgun.

Many companies wouldn't insure traditional weapons of war...so citizens who want to stay legal (as are most of the gun-owners in America) aren't going to possess them.

Criminals aren't going to care about insurance..just as they don't care about obtaining car insurance. But the bulk of the population follows the law and does carry auto insurance..and the system basically works.

So the high insurance premiums would prevent most people from possessing anything more than a handgun or semi-automatic rifle.

So what would stop your person from walking around town with a loaded shotgun at his side? If I were his insurance company, I would be charging him a pretty high premium. Carrying a shotgun would be a few notches higher than basic gun protection and would thus make me worried he is looking for trouble. I would make his premiums pretty high.

Those who would be too nervous with this total private solution would probably introduce some gov't regulation in the forms of minimum coverage for certain weapon types. Instead of permits, you might have to produce proof of insurance for your automatic weapon.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2007 10:28:25 AM

WTF???

Unlike my car getting into a fender bender I can not just collect the insurance if I got a 6 inch hole blown through my chest by a .50 caliber round.

btw their is already a kind of liability insurance in case you fuck up with your gun. It is called going to jail for manslaughter/murder/assault w. deadly weapon

Quote :

"o what would stop your person from walking around town with a loaded shotgun at his side? If I were his insurance company, I would be charging him a pretty high premium. Carrying a shotgun would be a few notches higher than basic gun protection and would thus make me worried he is looking for trouble. I would make his premiums pretty high."

I guess his insurance adjuster would be walking around town to see if his clients are carrying his gun into the bank or whever else.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 10:49 AM. Reason : 2]

12/13/2007 10:44:36 AM

Quote :

"A machine gun would carry a much higher premium than a handgun. Many companies wouldn't insure traditional weapons of war...so citizens who want to stay legal (as are most of the gun-owners in America) aren't going to possess them. "

sounds to me like the insurance companies would be infringing on our rights to bear arms!

12/13/2007 10:49:24 AM

I do not even think Charlton Heston would agree with EarthDogg's idea. It's shit like this that gives libertarians a bad name

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 10:50 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 10:51 AM. Reason : a]

12/13/2007 10:50:25 AM

imo the government should be the only ones allowed to have guns because they are the most responsible and know what is best for us all.

12/13/2007 10:50:30 AM

thats a funny

12/13/2007 10:51:15 AM

so if I pay my insurance premium that would cover me when I shot someone? I wouldn't have to go to trial or anything as long as I had insurance? Sweet

12/13/2007 11:00:31 AM

Thank you John Adams for fighting in the revolutionary war to protect my right to carry a fully automatic Tec-9. Shit gets dangerous when pushing 10 kilos of coke around raleigh. Our forefathers had some major foresight into the future!!



[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 11:09 AM. Reason : a]

12/13/2007 11:08:48 AM

sorry i shot you bro; let me give you my insurance information so they can take care of it. Have a good day

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 11:21 AM. Reason : aa]

12/13/2007 11:20:30 AM

Quote :

"their is already a kind of liability insurance in case you fuck up with your gun. It is called going to jail "

You have to carry auto insurance in case you run over somebody. If it was an accident, you still are financially liable. If you were drunk, it was a crime and you also get to go to jail. I guess I could post a photo of a deadly car-wreck here and post the same type of comment as you did.

So having liablity insurance does not relieve you of criminal action.

Quote :

"sounds to me like the insurance companies would be infringing on our rights to bear arms! "

You're right. They would be. Insurance companies are not financially obligated to support your right to own a handgun. They are out to make a profit.

And constantly posting photos of weapons of war is silly since most average gunowners have no desire to possess them. It's hard to discuss the mainstream aspect of self-protection when the opposing side is using fringe anti-gun nut tactics.

12/13/2007 11:28:31 AM

Quote :

"You have to carry auto insurance in case you run over somebody. If it was an accident, you still are financially liable. If you were drunk, it was a crime and you also get to go to jail. I guess I could post a photo of a"

You are comparing apples to oranges. Cars are not built to be weapons. Guns are built for the purpose of killing people (whether its self-defense, criminal intent, or providing security).

^ I am not on teh FUCKING OPPOSING SIDE. I clearly stated plenty of times i support gun rights and in other threads approval of a law-abiding citizen using his GUN to stop criminals. My argument relates how ridiculous it sounds to advocate for the repeal of regulation regarding gun control. The founding fathers had no insight into society 200 years in the future and surely did not intend the amendment to guarantee everyones right to walk around carrying a fully automatic AK47 everywhere the go.



[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason : aa]

12/13/2007 11:36:41 AM

Quote :

" And constantly posting photos of weapons of war is silly since most average gunowners have no desire to possess them."

you've stated, or at least implied, that "desire" has nothing to do with this - If it's a right, it's a right.

and I would disagree with your stance anyway. I think many, many gunowners would love to have a gigantic gun like those pictured, it not "just because they can".

12/13/2007 11:52:00 AM

I think the laws are fine as is. to carry a pistol you SHOULD have to go through a background check to make sure you're not loco.

Rifles are designed more for killing animals then they are for killing people.

12/13/2007 11:52:05 AM

^ exactly


pistols are more regulated then rifles b.c i simply can't sneak a rifle into the courthouse in my pants.

12/13/2007 12:01:24 PM

Quote :

"What about felons with guns? If I shoot someone and get out of jail 30 years later should I be able to get a gun."

You realize as it stands currently, violent felons can't own guns or vote right?

Quote :

" Is the ak-47 illegal? The host talks about it being full automatic, but later a police chief talks about how they have never had an altered ak47 to fully automatic. I dont understand. "

AK-47s are legal either in a semi-automatic only form, or if you have obtained a class III weapons permit. The process for obtaining that involves about 5 applications, a $200 tax stamp and an "ass meet comb" background check. Interestingly, the reason it involves a tx was at the time the law was passed, congress wasn't sure they could legally ban any type of guns, so instead they sought to tax the ones they wanted to restrict.

Quote :

"I guess in my mind what I would consider an assualt rifle, would be something fully automatic, easy to handle and with a large capacity for bullets. Thats just how I define it with my limited knowledge of guns. I cant fathom a situation you would need to shoot 100 rounds a min, or whatever. You see what im getting at? "

Target practice, especialy as a method of supplementing training aquired as part of the national guard, military or the millitia. Yes, it's a limited application, but it's still a legitimate application. Further, the current laws and prices of such weapons effectively remove it as a major element of crime, so I see no need for further laws.

Quote :

"Clearly George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were thinking ahead. They thought it to be essential as a free american to possess a firearm invented 200 years in the future capable of firing off 600 rounds a min"

Given that the gatling gun was invented only 100 years after the constitution was ratified and given that our founding fathers were clearly very smart people, it doesn't seem at all unlikey that they would not have at least foreseen an automatic gun.

For what it's worth, one reasonable restriction I heard that I tend to agree with is that it is an individual right to bear arms, which also means if you as an individual can not bear that arm, then it's not covered (as strongly) by the second amendment. Thus crew serviced automatic weapons would not fall under the same constitutional protections. It's not ideal, but realisticaly there are rocks and hard places when it comes to rights.

Quote :

"i'm excited aaronburro land sounds like the wild west. "

Well, as this recent shooting shows, all it takes is one citizen to stop a massacre in its tracks.

Quote :

"The Constitution can be amended to take out the part about guns too. "

But it hasn't been. Come back when it has and we'll talk then.

Quote :

"The problem at Columbine was the Klebold and Harris had guns, not that a teacher didn't. For all your drolling about saying it was the people and not the guns, Columbine would have turned out much differently had it been with clubs or knives. "

You will never be able to get rid of guns. It's just not possible. Did you watch the video I posted above? Did you note when he disassembled the one rifle how very small and simple the actual functional parts of the gun are?

The first problem is that these people are deciding to go on rampages to begin with, gun knive or club it doesn't matter. The second problem is that our society is so afraid of violence that no one is ever around to stop them until it's too late.

Quote :

" Why shouldnt we have cruise missles on the house as well? Where does it end?"

I think it ends at the point where it's no longer a personal weapon or where that weapon generates more collateral damage than it effectively stops the threat. Basically if the weapon is better suited to destroy buildings, machines, countries and whole armies, then it's not a personal weapon.

Quote :

"For example. Say you shot the kid shooting people at the mall. I turn the corner and see you shooting the kid. Now I shoot you. Justice? I go to jail? What do you do in that situation? "

Second rule of gun ownership, know your target. You comitted manslaughter, as to your level of punishment (if any) that depends on the totality of the situation.

Quote :

"However, like obtaining a drivers license i see no problem with ensuring people are educated in use of firearms and are not predisposed to committing gun violence. "

The government best be paying for this education and competency tests, elsewise you are effectively preventing the poor from exercising a constitutional right. Futhermore, other than a criminal/mental check (instant, yes/no), I see no reason why there should be any further checks to own a gun. To carry on public streets, if the government was paying, I could get behind a training/competency program. Then again, I think self defense in general should be part of the public school system.

Quote :

"Hur, like many licensing arguments..it does sound reasonable. But the licensing procedure is too open to political manipulation. "

This is definately a big concern. Any permit system, should be simple, objective yes/no tests. Is this person a convicted felon, was this person ever comitted to a mental institution by court order? And in addition, it should be instant. No bullshit waiting periods games. If the answer to the background check yes/no doesn't come back in 5 minutes, the default is approved. The state must prove their case for you to not be allowed to own a firearm, no the other way around.

Quote :

"One idea is to work through the insurance industry. "

No no no, then you effectively deny the poor their right to bear arms and you further introduce another hurdle and meathod of political interference.

Quote :

"The founding fathers had no insight into society 200 years in the future and surely did not intend the amendment to guarantee everyones right to walk around carrying a fully automatic AK47 everywhere the go."

Everyone won't be. An AK-47 is a rather conspicuous and unwieldy gun for day to day use. But that's no reason to prevent people from owning them.

12/13/2007 1:02:16 PM

Quote :

"Target practice, especialy as a method of supplementing training aquired as part of the national guard, military or the millitia."

So join the fucking Militia National Guard if you want to train and practice with your M4.

Quote :

"You realize as it stands currently, violent felons can't own guns or vote right?"

No shit, but according to aaronburro platform this is unconstitutional and the gov't should have NO say on who,what, and where
when it comes to guns.

Quote :

"Well, as this recent shooting shows, all it takes is one citizen to stop a massacre in its tracks."

do you earthdogg, and aaronburro practice selective reading?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?

I supported the woman's use of force and never advocated banning pistols or concealed armement. I just found it absurd
that some people think that their should be absolutly no regulation to gun control.

Quote :

"Given that the gatling gun was invented only 100 years after the constitution was ratified and given that our founding fathers were clearly very smart people, it doesn't seem at all unlikey that they would not have at least foreseen an automatic gun."

Yeah maybe in the same sense that the writer's of Back to the Future thought we'd all be using flying cars by 2015.

Quote :

"I think it ends at the point where it's no longer a personal weapon or where that weapon generates more collateral damage than it effectively stops the threat."

Kinda like a untrained person spraying his Tec-9 all over Hillsbourgh when a criminal tries to mug him?? I mean EarthDogg clearly states
he does not approve of requiring any kinda of regulation to ensure proper training and licensing

Quote :

"But the licensing procedure is too open to political manipulation. Take for example when I got my permit for a pistol. At the time Sheriff John Baker was hardly a pro-gun proponent. He alone got to decide the "licensing" procedure for Wake County."

12/13/2007 2:22:54 PM