RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

kittinSol -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:23:20 PM)

So, Obama is not coming after people's guns, just like he said during his campaign. False alarm, Sanity: all's well after all.



Irishknight -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:23:34 PM)

You used to be able to buy old tanks like Shermans.  Can you not buy them anymore?



slvemike4u -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:23:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
 
This would make sense if you could make the argument that a cars intended use is to maim and injure...but seeing as a car serves an altogether different use...this is just poppy-cock bullshit....but you know that, don't you.

Let's not confuse intent and effect...
 
The intent in owning a vehicle is transportation (excluding sport). The effect of an auto accident is injury, maiming, or death. The intent in owning a firearm is self-defense (excluding hunting and sport). The effect of getting hit by a bullet is injury, maiming, or death.
 
The real difference here is, in a transportation scenario, the injured, maimed, or dead didn't choose to be in an accident. In a self-defense situation, the injured, maimed, or dead chose to get themselves shot.
 
K.

 
As usual your logic is flawed.The premise that only those intended to be hit are in fact hit....is a leap of faith I for one am not willing to make.Especially when the weapon being fired is an assault rifle...which as I'm sure you know is not meant to be accurate as much as it is meant to spray an area thereby sweeping the intended field of fire.Of course every time these scenarios are bandied about we are supposed to accept as wholey writ that only intended targets are hit when Annie Oakly or Bat Masterson run to the rescue with their legaly owned assault weapon.....Please spare me the bullshit.



Lynnxz -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:23:47 PM)

I have an engine that used to be in tanks.... does that count? Now we are going to put it in a tiny little roadster and see what happens. I vote the back end blows up, but it'll be fun while it lasts. . 



philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:25:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Arms has a legal defined meaning, already ruled on by the court.
That definition excludes crew served weapons.



...ok, fair enough. However, what about ABC weapon systems? Theoretically, the B and C bits can be made in your cellar.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:26:04 PM)

However I can relate to the idea of wanting to own a tank just for the OMFG look at that factor.

Tanks can be great fun I had a platoon of them back in the 80's and they do tend to make you feel bullet proof.

And for some reason you never seem to have people tailgate you when you;'re driving one. LOL



SteelofUtah -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:27:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

DU = Depleted Uranium. Had to google. No I don't need them, Hell I'd throw rocks if I had to I just want a tank.

Steel


...why not get a horse drawn cart with a trebuchet mounted on it? [:D]


Who says I don't have one? Anyway for me owning them is like collecting things. I want to own a Tank so I can say I OWN a tank.

By the way a Trebuchet can do some serious damage. Think Cement Truck being used as a counter balance and the ammo was Old Buick Skylarks. That was a WONDERFUL day.

Steel



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:28:19 PM)

Explosive and incindiary devices are already regulated by law, and I agree they are properly regulated in general.
Bio and Chem weapons are regulated as well unlawful to manufacture, except by government contract.



Lynnxz -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:28:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

DU = Depleted Uranium. Had to google. No I don't need them, Hell I'd throw rocks if I had to I just want a tank.

Steel


...why not get a horse drawn cart with a trebuchet mounted on it? [:D]


Who says I don't have one? Anyway for me owning them is like collecting things. I want to own a Tank so I can say I OWN a tank.

By the way a Trebuchet can do some serious damage. Think Cement Truck being used as a counter balance and the ammo was Old Buick Skylarks. That was a WONDERFUL day.

Steel


You should have put that on youtube. :(



Irishknight -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:30:42 PM)

Trebuchet?  Funny, but my wife and I were deciding ho big of a trebuchetto build just the other day.  We want to be able to fling pianos for no apparent reason.

FOUR!!!!!!!!   Shit!!!  We hit the neighbor's house. We'll tell him it was a bunch of kids.



SteelofUtah -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:34:54 PM)

Here is what you will need to build your own I believe it even explains the math involved in the max capasity of your Treb.

You're Welcome

Steel



philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:35:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Explosive and incindiary devices are already regulated by law, and I agree they are properly regulated in general.
Bio and Chem weapons are regulated as well unlawful to manufacture, except by government contract.



...fair enough then. So the second amendment only covers projectile weapons maintainable by one person?



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:38:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

As usual your logic is flawed.The premise that only those intended to be hit are in fact hit....is a leap of faith I for one am not willing to make.Especially when the weapon being fired is an assault rifle...which as I'm sure you know is not meant to be accurate as much as it is meant to spray an area thereby sweeping the intended field of fire.Of course every time these scenarios are bandied about we are supposed to accept as wholey writ that only intended targets are hit when Annie Oakly or Bat Masterson run to the rescue with their legaly owned assault weapon.....Please spare me the bullshit.


Point #1 Assualt Rifles are already regulated and not legal to own without extensive paperwork and permission, and are not the weapons proposed to be banned by this act.

Point #2 the assault weapons catagory proposed for ban and the assault rifle catagory already regulated as Class III weapons includes weapons that are capable of very accurate fire out to ranges over 1,000 meters "not ment to be accurate" is so full of falsehoods and ignorance, that they are the Bullshit that we should be spared.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:38:39 PM)

Philosophy,

It isn't the guy with an AK or an Uzi you have to worry about.  It is the kid with a .22 rifle who can nail you between the eyes at 200 yards.  You won't hear him, you will never see him, and you can't catch him.

One doesn't win a guerilla war by defeating the enemy, you win it by making him the enemy of the public, all other paths lead to defeat.



Irishknight -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:40:07 PM)

LOL..  Actually, we have all the info for building the thing.  We've been planning to build it for years to display at our renaissance faires.  Its still a matter of making the decisions as to how big we dare go with it. 

I am pretty sure that site is even bookmarked on my wife's computer.  Thanks.  When we get 'er done, we'll invite you to come piano flingin.




slvemike4u -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:41:11 PM)

And bringing into this discussion the injuries as a result of MV accidents isn't bullshit.....BTW on full automatic just how accurate are you willing to say these weapons are...



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:42:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Explosive and incindiary devices are already regulated by law, and I agree they are properly regulated in general.
Bio and Chem weapons are regulated as well unlawful to manufacture, except by government contract.



...fair enough then. So the second amendment only covers projectile weapons maintainable by one person?


In practice currently under the law the 2nd amendment holds individual rights to semi auto only versions of the individual weapon of an infantry rifleman, sidearms (typical pistols) and sporting weapons.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:44:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And bringing into this discussion the injuries as a result of MV accidents isn't bullshit.....BTW on full automatic just how accurate are you willing to say these weapons are...


THESE WEAPONS that are proposed to be banned CANT FIRE ON AUTOMATIC, because they are semi auto only versions.



philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:44:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Philosophy,

It isn't the guy with an AK or an Uzi you have to worry about.  It is the kid with a .22 rifle who can nail you between the eyes at 200 yards.  You won't hear him, you will never see him, and you can't catch him.

One doesn't win a guerilla war by defeating the enemy, you win it by making him the enemy of the public, all other paths lead to defeat.


....got to be honest, i'm not particulary worried by US citizens owning rifles. Firstly i'm not in the US, secondly if it's my time it's my time. What does worry me (and my exchange with Archer has put a lot of this to rest) is the idea that the second amendment could be used to justify US citizens owning WMD's.



Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:45:07 PM)

Puhlease....

Is it a Right?  Yes, because it is in the Amendments to the Constitution.   Can it be changed?  Certainly, via another Amendment.   But it is more than a "law" because laws don't go through as vigorous vetting as an Amendment would go through.

The only "inalienable right", as I said on some other part of this board somewhere, doesn't exist.  I have no absolute right to even stay alive.  

However, the people who founded the US and wrote the Amendments and Constitution recognized those rights found there. 

Of course, it could also be stated that I have these Rights, as recognized by the Constitution and Amendments, for just "being alive."  And that any law that tries to change or limit these Rights is actually violating those Rights.    Certainly we recognize that other countries limit/restrict/forbid exercise of Rights, including freedom of assembly; of speech; etc.

So, either they are "Rights" by virtue of being alive or they are "Rights" recognized. 

======================

Limits to Nuclear Arms?  I said "maybe" ... please be more careful when you quote me.  If you want to push it, I'll say "Yes, certainly, I've the right to own a nuclear weapon."   I just don't have the right to use it irresponsibly.

Let's ban floggers...they hurt people.  Whips?  Oh My.  Nipple clamps?  Torture! 

============================
If you don't want to own a weapon, fine.  Good luck with that.  I won't force you to own one, like some municipalities have done in the past.  Just be sure to post "No Guns Here" on your house and wear a tag with the same declaration. 

I've been robbed at gunpoint.  Unbelievably, words didn't stop the bad guy from robbing me.  No Jedi Mind Trick would work.  And those marvelous skills from my karate class, well and good, but not with a weapon in your face.  The did let me stay cool and calm, though.  And no stain, either.

I ended up with permanent damage to my jaw where I was pistol whipped.  I probably would have been shot as well except that a car came by and someone started yelling.

Just remember, in the Real World, those PvP skills (Player vs Player) don't amount to squat. 





Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875