RE: A new ACW.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:16:50 PM)

quote:

warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.


I AM SCREAMING HERE. There are millions of Hammers out there, owned by law-abiding citizens. But if we can remove just ONE from the hands of a lunatic then the CHILDREN are safe. And I was not talking about the new McDonald's sandwich, the McHammer. But now, by GOD, it must be banned because, since it has the word hammer in it, some deviant might try to kill a CHILD with one. BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

Chickenhead sputtered
quote:


NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!


DA, all HAMMERS banned. This is as sensible as banning any gun. Prove it is not.



Chickenboy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski
BAN everything with HAMMER in it.



So by this logic, when I went to McDonald's I would order a "burg" to leave out the offending letters?



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:19:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Actually you can. Just pay the NFA tax stamp

RR

More hyperbole as usual. Apparently owning a RR is exactly the same as owning a rifle.

I get it, Gary. Personal liberties are simply a quaint anachronism to you.

There are groups who like shooting Civil War cannons. I'm sure you'd be first in line to put an end to that travesty.




I remember passing by a VA lodge or whatever on the way to work many years ago which had a 3in DP gun in the front lawn. Not fireable I assume, though I'm not sure. I enjoyed seeing a piece of recent history there. I'm sure there are people out there who own a few rocket launchers and maybe have show on the history channel or something. Hopefully RRs don't become common in any way. Civil War re-enactments are fun and educational. I doubt Civil war cannons make very practical toys for the lunatic fringe. But yeah, if lunatics or street gangs started to use Civil War cannons in school shootings I would be for stricter controls on them. And if Charlton Heston got up on a stage and declared "out of my cold dead hands" regarding his RR, I'd be a little concerned for the guy's mental health. I couldn't see anything rational in dying over the right to own one.



Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:19:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

Gary,

How would you feel if a proposal was submitted to tweak the First Amendment.

It might say that freedom of speech should be restricted in circumstances where that speech was "hateful" or unpopular.

It might sound like a PC thing, I mean who is in favor of hateful speech?

But when you take a moment to look at that more closely, who is to be the arbiter of what hate speech is?
Would using the "n" word be considered hate speech? If you did that half of rap music would be deemed illegal.

Minimize one right of the people as stated in the Constitution and you open the door for it to happen to others as well.


You are just trying to obfuscate the issue with something not even closely related to the same thing, other than you think that not being able to own any weapon of your choosing violates the 2nd amendment.

Also, Gary is 100% correct in stating that it is a matter of degrees in regard to rocket launchers and an arsenal. The second amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms. Well, how about nuclear arms? It has arms right in the name. It's a weapon. If you don't think citizens should be able to get those, then you are simply drawing the line at a different location. Heck, we don't even want other countries to get certain types of weapons, and they are not even covered by the constitution.



A) I have not advocate laws to allow the ownership of "any weapon of your choosing". There are current limits in place with regards to things like automatic weapons and machine guns.

B) I do not favor individuals owning nuclear arms.

Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook, stole the weapons he used.

Has his mother taken commen sense steps like keeping her guns locked up in a safe, Lanza would not have had access to them.
This is even more relevant when one takes into consideration the reports that his mother was considering having him institutionalize due to his mental condition.





warspite1 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:20:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.


I AM SCREAMING HERE. There are millions of Hammers out there, owned by law-abiding citizens. But if we can remove just ONE from the hands of a lunatic then the CHILDREN are safe. And I was not talking about the new McDonald's sandwich, the McHammer. But now, by GOD, it must be banned because, since it has the word hammer in it, some deviant might try to kill a CHILD with one. BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

Chickenhead sputtered
quote:


NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!


DA, all HAMMERS banned. This is as sensible as banning any gun. Prove it is not.
McHammer

Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon


[image]local://upfiles/28156/2DBFD104B8624F0F9909BDDD173DF871.jpg[/image]



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:21:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

I am back to say I was wrong. Yep. After thinking things over we should just throw our hands up, surrender our rights and do what "feels good".

Headline from Texas:

Robber Beats Dallas Clerk With Several Hammers

There you go. Ban hammers. Right now. Ban hammers. Ban hammers. No one really needs one, do they?????

Hey, I'm just getting on the band wagon. I hope I get support from those who say we have no need of "assault" rifles.

BAN HAMMERS NOW. THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT NEED ONE.

We can make some allowances by licensing 1 hammer(with rubber head) to home builders.

Finally, I want a total ban(no exceptions) on MC Hammers.


Be a little hard to build much without hammers wouldn't it?



Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:23:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

warspite1

You are right out of line there parusski. Leave Scottish rappers with silly pants out of this - there is nothing wrong with McHammer.


I AM SCREAMING HERE. There are millions of Hammers out there, owned by law-abiding citizens. But if we can remove just ONE from the hands of a lunatic then the CHILDREN are safe. And I was not talking about the new McDonald's sandwich, the McHammer. But now, by GOD, it must be banned because, since it has the word hammer in it, some deviant might try to kill a CHILD with one. BAN everything with HAMMER in it.

Chickenhead sputtered
quote:


NEIN! I SUPPORT ZE HAMMERS! HEIL HAMMERS!


DA, all HAMMERS banned. This is as sensible as banning any gun. Prove it is not.


What about the (Arm & Hammer) baking soda?
Ban or no ban?



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:25:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski
BAN everything with HAMMER in it.



So by this logic, when I went to McDonald's I would order a "burg" to leave out the offending letters?


My Lord, I missed this. Due to the current climate-YES. You can only order a burg. That is the safe thing.

warpedspite.5 lamely wrote:

McHammer

quote:

Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon


There is no place for any logical arguments from anyone like you(we must be consistent with the gun control crowd logic), so if you continue making sensible arguments I will simply shout you down. And I will use ever increasingly lame positions, but I will mainly say--YOU DON'T NEED A HAMMER ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED A RIFLE THAT CAN FIRE MORE THAN 7, 9 OR 10 ROUNDS.

I don't care about logic, or the 1st or 2nd amendment. I only care about sounding good and protecting the chi'ren.



warspite1 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:34:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski
BAN everything with HAMMER in it.



So by this logic, when I went to McDonald's I would order a "burg" to leave out the offending letters?


My Lord, I missed this. Due to the current climate-YES. You can only order a burg. That is the safe thing.

warpedspite.5 lamely wrote:

McHammer

quote:

Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon


There is no place for any logical arguments from anyone like you(we must be consistent with the gun control crowd logic), so if you continue making sensible arguments I will simply shout you down. And I will use ever increasingly lame positions, but I will mainly say--YOU DON'T NEED A HAMMER ANY MORE THAN YOU NEED A RIFLE THAT CAN FIRE MORE THAN 7, 9 OR 10 ROUNDS.

I don't care about logic, or the 1st or 2nd amendment. I only care about sounding good and protecting the chi'ren.
warspite1

Well you lot are going on about the 1st and 2nd Amendment - what about the 5th Amendment?? I asked McHammer but he just said "The Fifth Amendment - no way - I ain't sayin' nothin'"



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:34:26 PM)

ALERT. :

I just learned that Julio González caused the deaths of 87 people in the Happy Land Fire(Bronx, New York City) on March 25, 1990. Mr. Gonzalez started the murderous conflagration using a plastic container filled with GASOLINE. I have also learned that both plastic containers and gasoline can be purchased, without any background checks or licensing.

I ask everyone, for the children, to ban both deadly substance NOW. After all, you don't need either. WALK dumb asses.



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:35:36 PM)

I was sort of enjoying the discussion. But if you guys don't want to discuss things rationally I guess there's no point in continuing? [image]http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/idunno.gif[/image]



parusski -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:39:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I was sort of enjoying the discussion. But if you guys don't want to discuss things rationally I guess there's no point in continuing. [image]http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/idunno.gif[/image]


Really? Rationally? Like circumventing the Second Amendment?

I am making an absurd point. One as absurd as saying citizens have no need for an "assault" rifle. It is not the place of anyone, especially the government, to tell us what kind of gun we can own. I am talking guns sir, not grenade launchers, not tanks...so don't harp on that tired argument.



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:42:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I was sort of enjoying the discussion. But if you guys don't want to discuss things rationally I guess there's no point in continuing. [image]http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/idunno.gif[/image]


Really? Rationally? Like circumventing the Second Amendment?

I am making an absurd point. One as absurd as saying citizens have no need for an "assault" rifle. It is not the place of anyone, especially the government, to tell us what kind of gun we can own. I am talking guns sir, not grenade launchers, not tanks...so don't harp on that tired argument.


What about full automatic? Are you talking those or no?



Mundy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:49:15 PM)

Pay your tax stamp and you can have one.

Q.E.D.



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 6:54:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Pay your tax stamp and you can have one.

Q.E.D.


So if they end up getting banned would I get to say "They are banned Q.E.D?" Or does it not work that way?



Mundy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 7:02:53 PM)

I was saying that they are legal.

You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.



Chickenboy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 7:24:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon


[image]local://upfiles/28156/2DBFD104B8624F0F9909BDDD173DF871.jpg[/image]


[:D]



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 7:24:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I was saying that they are legal.

You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.


Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression but I know of people who have full auto weapons under license. I used to go to a shooting range with my dad when I was a kid and witnessed a couple guys with full auto M-16s shooting up targets myself. Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]



Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 8:41:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I was saying that they are legal.

You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.


Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression but I know of people who have full auto weapons under license. I used to go to a shooting range with my dad when I was a kid and witnessed a couple guys with full auto M-16s shooting up targets myself. Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]


I don't think it's as simple as havin a couple hundred dollars and going to do it over the weekend.

Here is a set where the question was brought up and answered:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332506

Looks like at best it will take 90 days or more, set you back several hundred dollars for the stamp, and actually purchasing a weapon could set you back thousands of dollars.

Seems like beyond the means of many people.
Certainly not practical for someone who is intent on going out spur of the moment to shoot commit a violent criminal act.
And someone who is mentally unstable would likely not pass the BATF required background check or the approval of the local county sheriff.





Jim D Burns -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 8:58:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]



Depends on the state laws in place wherever you may be. Some states ban full auto some don't.

I do find your reasoning in this discussion to be seriously flawed. You're afraid (irrationally in my view) of your fellow armed citizens, so you want to use the government to club them over the head with your point of view and take away their rights. But you fail to see that by doing this you are granting the government powers over the people our founders never intended that the government should have.

While the occasional loon with a gun kills people now and then (admittedly all tragedies in their own right), it comes nowhere near the tragic mass slaughter committed by the occasional loon in charge of a government with the power over its people you want ours to have.

I can think of no other kind of foolishness than to trust in government instead of trusting in the people. A government is not some all knowing benevolent force that just wants to do good. It is simply a system of control over people and attracts to it the worst elements in a society. Give it the control over your life you seem to want it to have and I guarantee you it will come back and bite you on the ass someday.

Jim



barkman44 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 10:14:21 PM)

the "born alive infant protection act"which he voted against twice while senator.he is the most pro abortion pres.we've ever had "I don't want her punished with a baby"remember that line?
one suggestion to welfare moms and those who can't afford to raise a child while on welfare,food stamps,housing subsidies,free cell phones,ebt,KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER!!!!don't have unprotected sex,oh i forgot i'm supposed to pay for their contraceptives also.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!

[&o]


So we do want to go down this road....OK.

Ummm, abortion is legal. And why would the President, any President, be a hypocrite? Last I looked, SCOTUS decided Roe.

You know what a real hypocrite is in this matter? Those who cry about welfare mothers, abortion, etc, but fail to step up and station themselves at abortion clinics and not only pay for all the care til birth, but support said child till they reach majority.




GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 10:51:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I was saying that they are legal.

You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.


Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression but I know of people who have full auto weapons under license. I used to go to a shooting range with my dad when I was a kid and witnessed a couple guys with full auto M-16s shooting up targets myself. Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]


I don't think it's as simple as havin a couple hundred dollars and going to do it over the weekend.

Here is a set where the question was brought up and answered:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332506

Looks like at best it will take 90 days or more, set you back several hundred dollars for the stamp, and actually purchasing a weapon could set you back thousands of dollars.

Seems like beyond the means of many people.
Certainly not practical for someone who is intent on going out spur of the moment to shoot commit a violent criminal act.
And someone who is mentally unstable would likely not pass the BATF required background check or the approval of the local county sheriff.





Should mentally unstable people be allowed to purchase full auto if they have or come across the means to do so? Suppose they don't have any kind of record, just a bit messed up in their minds, you know, writing the occasional diary entry saying that they want to kill all the XYZs in town or whatever. And if they shouldn't be allowed to purchase full auto, is that an instance of government unjustly contolling these specific individuals even though they've done no recorded harm yet? Is this an instance of the government being unjust to them? Preventing them from making choices they want to make? What about DUI? Should I be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car, completely stoned or whatever? Is the government unjustly controlling my desire to drive while intoxicated? Or what about heroin or cocaine? Surely making those things illegal is just more government interference in my life?



GaryChildress -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 11:41:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

the "born alive infant protection act"which he voted against twice while senator.he is the most pro abortion pres.we've ever had "I don't want her punished with a baby"remember that line?
one suggestion to welfare moms and those who can't afford to raise a child while on welfare,food stamps,housing subsidies,free cell phones,ebt,KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER!!!!don't have unprotected sex,oh i forgot i'm supposed to pay for their contraceptives also.


You might want to stress something similiar to middle class high school kids as well then. Some of them occasionally can't keep their legs together either and then what are they supposed to do? Spend the rest of their lives as a single mom raising a kid who was little more than one night's drunken mayhem. Obviously teaching them about contraceptives in high school is wrong and even if it weren't there will still be unwanted pregnancies. I suppose putting the child up for adoption is a possibility but I wonder, if abortion was outlawed, would that create a glutt of children in the adoption market?



aspqrz02 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 11:44:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB
So in the US government changes the constitution not the people, here in OZ the government proposes a change and the people get to vote on the change. A majority of the states must agree and I think, but I maybe wrong on this, I think 75% of voters must vote yes to the amendment.


Nope. Both simpler and more complex.

To change the Australian constitution you need to achieve two things in a Referendum ...

1) Achieve a simple majority of the vote (50% + 1 vote)

and

2) Achieve a simple majority of the vote in each of a majority (currently 4 of 6) states.

The majority of Referenda have been rejected. Including two in WW1 which rejected Conscription (which the US just let the gummint do to its citizens ... right to bear arms or not).

The Referenda which passed were those that had bipartisan (often tripartisan, as, occasionally, variant opinion groups, usually from the Conservative side of politics, arose on specific issues) support. No such support = Referenda fails.

Phil



aspqrz02 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/18/2013 11:55:29 PM)

Actually, as I noted in another post, he's wrong. Which undercuts your reply's rationale.

We don't have mob rule in Australia for the very simple reason that to pass a Referendum you have to do two things ... get a simple majority (50% + 1 vote), not the 75% suggested ... but, then, and this is *much* harder, you have to get a simple majority in 4 of the 6 states.

Of the 44 that have been held, only 8 have gotten up, and all of those that did had bipartisan support.

Hardly mob rule.

The reason for the strange rules was deliberately to make it difficult to change the constitution. When the states were considering it (and still today), NSW and Victoria combined had 60% of the population, and the other four states were worried that the provisions protecting their rights and status (and giving them disproportionate bennies to their actual population) could simply be voted out in a Referendum by NSW and Victoria.

Therefore they required the "majority of states" bit ... meaning that at least two of the small population states would have to agree to the change, in effect.

As I said, hardly mob rule.

Phil



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/19/2013 12:42:07 AM)

The part about abortion? They made it perfectly clear.

Not here.



Chickenboy -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/19/2013 12:53:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

the "born alive infant protection act"which he voted against twice while senator.he is the most pro abortion pres.we've ever had "I don't want her punished with a baby"remember that line?
one suggestion to welfare moms and those who can't afford to raise a child while on welfare,food stamps,housing subsidies,free cell phones,ebt,KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER!!!!don't have unprotected sex,oh i forgot i'm supposed to pay for their contraceptives also.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89


quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!

[&o]


So we do want to go down this road....OK.

Ummm, abortion is legal. And why would the President, any President, be a hypocrite? Last I looked, SCOTUS decided Roe.

You know what a real hypocrite is in this matter? Those who cry about welfare mothers, abortion, etc, but fail to step up and station themselves at abortion clinics and not only pay for all the care til birth, but support said child till they reach majority.




Guys-keep it on topic. We've already had a moderator tell us 'no' to the whole abortion thing. Knock it off or you'll get the thread locked. Don't be trolls.



Mobius -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/19/2013 1:34:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.
Our modern civilization is seriously over extended financially. It cannot mathematical pay for all it's on the hook for. So as time goes on more and more cuts will have to be made to public safety. First locally, then regionally and then even nationally. Some cities right now like Vallejo and Stockton CA had to cut it's police force down so much that there is a crime wave. If someone is breaking into your house and you call the police and they don't come what are you going to do?

I wonder too, if the police, the FBI and the Secret Service are going to turn their guns in for ones that only have 10 round clips?




junk2drive -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/19/2013 1:46:39 AM)

IMO the original intent, back when travel was 20 miles a day, was that the states, counties and cities would run the day to day affairs and the federal govt (look up federal some time) would only provide for the common defense, and real money. Somewhere along the line we got fiat money, no gold standard and the feds telling teachers what they have to teach, along with a whole lot of other things that the feds were not supposed to be doing.

So the country is once again divided, those that think that the feds should control more and those that think control less. With extremists on both ends.



Will_L_OLD -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/19/2013 2:34:39 AM)

I project some civil unrest over various issues sparking up later this year into the fall of 2014. More importantly... I like pie. Does anyone else like pie?



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.544922