Urban planning community

Poll results: Should Gun Regulations Be:

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Extremely More Restrictive (only cops and military)

    1 5.26%
  • Substantially More Restrictive (Permit hunting rifles and shot guns only)

    1 5.26%
  • Moderately More Restrictive (CCW type training & registration for everyone who buys any gun)

    6 31.58%
  • Slightly More Restrictive (Registration of all guns and CCW type training for handguns)

    8 42.11%
  • It is good how it is (Background checks on handguns and assault rifles)

    2 10.53%
  • Slightly Less Restrictive (Sign a form and a waiver to buy a gun)

    0 0%
  • Moderately Less Restrictive (Waiting list and CCW to get automatic guns)

    0 0%
  • Substantially Less Restrictive (Buy Automatic guns at Wal-mart, no background check)

    0 0%
  • Extremely Less Restrictive (it is my 2nd amendment right to own a bazooka)

    1 5.26%
+ Reply to thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 143

Thread: Should gun laws and regulation be increased or decreased?

  1. #76
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,667
    Quote Originally posted by Raf View post
    Honestly, bearing arms back in 1782 has a completely different meaning than it does in 2013. Call me off my rocker, but honestly, it's time to really just ditch the 2nd amendment. If people want to "protect" their freedoms of a tyrannical government, they will find a way, seriously.
    But, but, the Founders knew EVERYTHING! The Constitution is ALL knowing. How DARE you? WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA??? WAAAHHHHHHH!!!!


    Just another reason a constitutional convention would make sense. Our "right" to bare arms is incredible skewed by some. Just as our "right" to free speech, our "right" to be idiots, etc.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  2. #77
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,178
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    But, but, the Founders knew EVERYTHING! The Constitution is ALL knowing. How DARE you? WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA??? WAAAHHHHHHH!!!!


    Just another reason a constitutional convention would make sense. Our "right" to bare arms is incredible skewed by some. Just as our "right" to free speech, our "right" to be idiots, etc.
    I am thankful that people like you don't have the power to do it.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  3. #78
    I would've voted for the third option - "Moderately More Restrictive (CCW type training & registration for everyone who buys any gun)", but the poll is now closed.

    I'm in favor of more restrictions to some extent - yes, everyone should undergo proper safety training in order to recieve a permit to purchase a firearm, yes I'm in favor of registering long guns as well as handguns (most states only require handgun registration). But at the same time, I can never really go too far left on this issue. I just don't understand how people are quicker to blame the gun than they are to blame the shooter. Guns don't fire themselves. You can put a loaded semi-automatic rifle in my hand right now and I guarantee you I will NOT go shoot up an elementary school. And it's got nothing to do with guns, it's got everything to do with the fact that I'm not a freaking psychopath or a criminal.

    The media and people on the left make it sound as if guns turn completely ordinary Joes who are totally non-violent into mass murderers. They don't. Guns are not living, breathing things that whisper to you in the night and tell you go to kill a bunch of kids. If that's the case, given the fact that we have an estimated 200-300 million guns in this country, there should actually be a LOT more murders than what there already are.

    It's also worth noting that a lot of people don't really know what's legal and what's not. In the wake of the mass shootings in Connecticut, I can't tell you how many people I've heard say, "we should ban automatic weapons." For all intents and purposes, fully auto weapons are pretty much illegal already. It is EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, for a civilian to legally acquire an M-16, for example.

    Semi-auto weapons, of course, are generally legal, but there is a huge difference between semi and fully auto, and I think people may not realize that. Of course, you can still kill someone with a semi-auto gun, but then again you can kill them with a pump-action shotgun or any other firearm where the shooter has to manually chamber a round before firing.

  4. #79
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419

    Regulate Guns LIke Cars

    http://readersupportednews.org/opini...guns-like-cars

    Anyone who wants to own a gun should likewise take a written test on gun safety, proper means of carrying, loading and unloading, and turning the safety on and off to get a gun owner's permit, though actually shooting it must be done with a licensed gun owner. After an appropriate waiting period, gun owners should take an actual test involving everything from loading and unloading to proper storage, even shooting proficiency. And each gun should be registered in each state it travels to, each gun owner should submit to an annual inspection for their weapon, and each gun purchase should come with mandatory liability insurance. Also, the assault weapons ban should be reinstated, because nobody who isn't in the military or on the police force should ever need an AK-47 or an AR-15, not to hunt deer or protect their families.

    If people have a problem with this, then they are either criminally minded, or have an unhealthy belief that the government is going to "get them".
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  5. #80
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    http://readersupportednews.org/opini...guns-like-cars

    Anyone who wants to own a gun should likewise take a written test on gun safety, proper means of carrying, loading and unloading, and turning the safety on and off to get a gun owner's permit, though actually shooting it must be done with a licensed gun owner. After an appropriate waiting period, gun owners should take an actual test involving everything from loading and unloading to proper storage, even shooting proficiency. And each gun should be registered in each state it travels to, each gun owner should submit to an annual inspection for their weapon, and each gun purchase should come with mandatory liability insurance. Also, the assault weapons ban should be reinstated, because nobody who isn't in the military or on the police force should ever need an AK-47 or an AR-15, not to hunt deer or protect their families.

    If people have a problem with this, then they are either criminally minded, or have an unhealthy belief that the government is going to "get them".
    It's downright scary that there are many people out there who oppose these type of common sense provisions because they believe it will infringe on thier right to shoot government officials. And even scarier is that these people are overrepresented in congress. We do have a gun problem in America. I don't think it's necessarily too many guns, but instead too many gun nuts who fantasize about shooting and murdering government officials.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  6. #81
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,178
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    http://readersupportednews.org/opini...guns-like-cars

    Anyone who wants to own a gun should likewise take a written test on gun safety, proper means of carrying, loading and unloading, and turning the safety on and off to get a gun owner's permit, though actually shooting it must be done with a licensed gun owner. After an appropriate waiting period, gun owners should take an actual test involving everything from loading and unloading to proper storage, even shooting proficiency. And each gun should be registered in each state it travels to, each gun owner should submit to an annual inspection for their weapon, and each gun purchase should come with mandatory liability insurance. Also, the assault weapons ban should be reinstated, because nobody who isn't in the military or on the police force should ever need an AK-47 or an AR-15, not to hunt deer or protect their families.

    If people have a problem with this, then they are either criminally minded, or have an unhealthy belief that the government is going to "get them".
    I totally agree with the class and the testing. But why the ban on assault weapons? What would be the definition of assault weapon? I would also question what is an "appropriate" waiting period? Time does not make one proficient in anything, practice and training does. If a person can do that in a week or a weekend, why make them wait 6 years. It is also important to note that some types of guns don't have a safety button. The safety is not loading the weapon or keeping your finger off the trigger.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  7. #82
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I totally agree with the class and the testing. But why the ban on assault weapons? What would be the definition of assault weapon? I would also question what is an "appropriate" waiting period? Time does not make one proficient in anything, practice and training does. If a person can do that in a week or a weekend, why make them wait 6 years. It is also important to note that some types of guns don't have a safety button. The safety is not loading the weapon or keeping your finger off the trigger.
    I don't think a civilized society has any need for assault weapons. As for definition, for starters, let's go with what was contained in the assault weapon ban of 1994.

    After their initial testing, we still make people wait 1-3 years before they have full privileges to drive a vehicle. I see no reason why it should be any different for something that is built to kill things.

    I want people to be able to own a gun, or even multiple guns. But it shouldn't be easy. It should be perhaps the most difficult thing for a person to acquire.

    For the record, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment was written to allow individuals the express right to own a gun.
    Last edited by btrage; 17 Jan 2013 at 4:00 PM.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  8. #83
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    I
    I see no reason why it should be any different for something that is built to kill things.
    Assault weapons are to kill people.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  9. #84
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,254
    I want guns at least as regulated as Sudafed.

    In all seriousness, I've got a CHL. I own a Glock 19, which lives in a locked gun case. I am not a "gun nut" like a lot of these folks that have frightening gun fetishes. It was too easy for me to get both the license and especially the gun, in my opinion. There was a person in my CHL class that passed that I honestly believe was too unstable to own a gun. I don't think proficiency standards are high enough or required frequently enough, they do not sufficiently emphasize proper & safe storage, don't address theft prevention & reporting, do not provide enough continuing education requirements, etc. I think liability insurance should be required of gun owners given the significantly higher likelihood of an accident versus actually using it for defense. I also don't see any reason for someone to have a clip with more than the standard 15 rounds mine came with. I don't see any reason for someone to own an assault rifle, though I think we need a better definition of what those are.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  10. #85
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,178
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    I don't think a civilized society has any need for assault weapons. As for definition, for starters, let's go with what was contained in the assault weapon ban of 1994.
    I don't think that a civilized society has any need for big macs, big gulps, or high fructose corn syrup. Those also kill but I don't think that the government should ban those either. I agree that we should not have automatic weapons, but I question the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban in 1994.

    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    After their initial testing, we still make people wait 1-3 years before they have full privileges to drive a vehicle. I see no reason why it should be any different for something that is built to kill things.
    I rather see a system more like a pilots lesson, where they are required to have so many hours at the rage that could be fully documented by a range master before they can carry. As I said before, time does nothing but training and practice is what makes a difference.

    Since you suggest that we treat them like cars, lets drop the age to 16 to begin the process, establish provisions to allow people from one state to carry in another state or city on public property and in any other location unless it is indicated by a signs that guns are not permitted at that business, arena, office building, or other place.

    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    I want people to be able to own a gun, or even multiple guns. But it shouldn't be easy. It should be perhaps the most difficult thing for a person to acquire.
    I agree that it should not be 'easy' until you have a licence like a CCW or CPL. If I wanted to buy a car, I walk into a dealership test drive something, write him a check. There is some paper work and I drive it home. Same thing with a gun... if you have a licence.

    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    For the record, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment was written to allow individuals the express right to own a gun.
    For the record, the US Supreme court ruled differently multiple times over the past 200 years.

    Quote Originally posted by ColoGI View post
    Assault weapons are to kill people.
    Assault weapons as I define them (fully automatic), yes. As the State of New York defines them, no. My deer hunting rifle was created to shoot and kill large game animals, yet meets two the the categories listed in the NY law, but mine is more powerful that most of the EVIL ASSAULT RIFLES.

    Most of the differences are pure cosmetic anyways. Should we ban cars that look fast too? After all, the must have been made to speed.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  11. #86
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,657
    Blog entries
    5
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I don't think that a civilized society has any need for big macs, big gulps, or high fructose corn syrup. Those also kill but I don't think that the government should ban those either. I agree that we should not have automatic weapons, but I question the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban in 1994.
    Last time I checked, someone can't kill someone else with a Big Mac.

    I rather see a system more like a pilots lesson, where they are required to have so many hours at the rage that could be fully documented by a range master before they can carry. As I said before, time does nothing but training and practice is what makes a difference.
    Training and practice do make a difference. It's not a bad idea to require some sort of continuing practice/training.

    Since you suggest that we treat them like cars, lets drop the age to 16 to begin the process, establish provisions to allow people from one state to carry in another state or city on public property and in any other location unless it is indicated by a signs that guns are not permitted at that business, arena, office building, or other place.
    That's a fabulous idea!

    I agree that it should not be 'easy' until you have a licence like a CCW or CPL. If I wanted to buy a car, I walk into a dealership test drive something, write him a check. There is some paper work and I drive it home. Same thing with a gun... if you have a licence.
    A license and insurance. The difference being that you can be a criminal or nutter and still have a driver's license.

    For the record, the US Supreme court ruled differently multiple times over the past 200 years.
    They've reversed themselves on quite a few issues. Just because something has been a way for a long time doesn't mean that it should continue in the same fashion.

    Assault weapons as I define them (fully automatic), yes. As the State of New York defines them, no. My deer hunting rifle was created to shoot and kill large game animals, yet meets two the the categories listed in the NY law, but mine is more powerful that most of the EVIL ASSAULT RIFLES.

    Most of the differences are pure cosmetic anyways. Should we ban cars that look fast too? After all, the must have been made to speed.
    What is the intent of an assault rifle? I don't think it has anything to do with hunting down game.

    You are close to jumping the shark.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  12. #87
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,178
    Quote Originally posted by kjel View post
    Last time I checked, someone can't kill someone else with a Big Mac.
    Good point, people are not forced to eat that trash and destroy their heart but they do. I figure it is important because it is an impact in the top for leading causes of death in the us. Murder does not even make the top ten, regardless of the weapon.

    More people die because of the crap they smoke and the junk they eat than any other cause. But guns are EVIL and must be banned.
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm


    Quote Originally posted by kjel View post
    What is the intent of an assault rifle? I don't think it has anything to do with hunting down game.
    Target Practice and Recreation. If you go to the Cabela's website, they don't have a separate division for assault rifles. A semiautomatic gun yes, and it includes several hunting rifles too.


    Those who want to do something illegal are going to find a way. People still got shot during the assault weapon ban.
    Last edited by michaelskis; 17 Jan 2013 at 6:11 PM.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  13. #88
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,787
    Quote Originally posted by kjel View post

    You are close to jumping the shark.
    He's jumped the shark so many times, it's like a game of hopscotch
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  14. #89
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,178
    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    He's jumped the shark so many times, it's like a game of hopscotch
    That is funny, when people go shark fishing, they shoot the shark before they bring it on board... with a gun.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  15. #90
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    5,867
    Blog entries
    6
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    That is funny, when people go shark fishing, they shoot the shark before they bring it on board... with a gun.
    Yeah, the p*ssies do. We always just pulled them into the boat and fought it out. After the shark was dead, we counted fingers and toes. Whoever had the most was the winner.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  16. #91
    Quote Originally posted by Suburb Repairman View post
    I also don't see any reason for someone to have a clip with more than the standard 15 rounds mine came with. I don't see any reason for someone to own an assault rifle, though I think we need a better definition of what those are.

    I kind of agree with you, but then again couldn't somebody walk into a school carrying two loaded pistols with 15-round magazines apiece and just kill 30 people before they have to re-load?

  17. #92
    Cyburbian fringe's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Comer, GA
    Posts
    570
    Interp from fringe says gun violence is natural expression of our mass mentality as mass murderers in our national global conquest mode. Can't be helped considering what we are as a collective mentality.

  18. #93
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,667
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I am thankful that people like you don't have the power to do it.
    I know because we would have a rational person making decisions. Now how would that work in Washington. They wouldn't even know what to do ....

    I find it interesting that so many people (especially those with the unrealistic libertarian bent) would love to see the world with no rational regulation. They would much rather pretend that a document created 200 years ago is relevant today.

    You know why we update sign codes? Because we didn't have a clue that digital signs were coming in 1950. I promise you that no sign code in 1950 adequately defines or regulates digital signage. How you think that the constitution's words sound today?:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    - A well regulated militia. We don't have a need for state militias. Unless you really are crazy and think the federal government is going to get you.
    - The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Define arms in the 1700's. Then once you do that. Keep to it. You have a right to own and hoard arms that were made in the 1700's. A reasonable man, which most of the founders were, would never give carte blanche to our country to have weapons that could kill so easily. Why are nuclear weapons not arms? What about flame throwers? Why can't I have those? I have a right to keep and bear arms.
    - Shall not be infringed.

    So what was the actual reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment?

    -enabling the people to organize a militia system. - Not needed.
    -participating in law enforcement; - Not needed.
    -deterring tyrannical government; - Ridiculous reason, but not needed.
    -repelling invasion; - Not needed.
    -suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts - Obviously not needed.
    -facilitating a natural right of self-defense; - There can be an argument made here.

    So says lots of books and wikipedia. I guess I just fundamentally do not agree that our founders knew everything. That they were omnipresent. That they thought of everything. That their meaning can be figured out in the world we live in today. I promise you I wouldn't dare to believe that I could regulate a community today and expect my code to be in place in 100 years without issue. Things will advance far beyond anything that I could even pretend to realize. I could be extremely vague, and pretend that my words cover everything... but everyone would know they don't. I am unable to understand what the world will be like in 100 years.

    I wish there were more people like me that would like to see a reasonable, rational, discussion about our founding documents. I don't think we need to replace them completely, but having a fresh start is not a bad thing. Our Constitution is like the Magna Carta. A great foundation that should be used to create a more perfect union....today. I am aware I am in the minority. I believe you are as well though.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  19. #94
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    17,737
    Quote Originally posted by fringe View post
    Interp from fringe says gun violence is natural expression of our mass mentality as mass murderers in our national global conquest mode. Can't be helped considering what we are as a collective mentality.
    That is one of the most peculiar things about our species...that as individual beings we're capable of being so decent, patient, tolerant, and understanding, yet in mass/collectively we're machines bent on causing pain and destruction
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  20. #95
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by Maister View post
    That is one of the most peculiar things about our species...that as individual beings we're capable of being so decent, patient, tolerant, and understanding, yet in mass/collectively we're machines bent on causing pain and destruction
    What's wrong with pain and destruction? you commie hippy!

    Another aspect we have not discussed here is to what extent does owning large killing machines function as compensation for small penis or other sexual dysfunction.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  21. #96
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    Another aspect we have not discussed here is to what extent does owning large killing machines function as compensation for small penis or other sexual dysfunction.
    Nothing to discuss. It is self-evident, like truck nuts.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  22. #97
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,657
    Blog entries
    5
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Good point, people are not forced to eat that trash and destroy their heart but they do. I figure it is important because it is an impact in the top for leading causes of death in the us. Murder does not even make the top ten, regardless of the weapon.

    More people die because of the crap they smoke and the junk they eat than any other cause. But guns are EVIL and must be banned.
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm


    Target Practice and Recreation. If you go to the Cabela's website, they don't have a separate division for assault rifles. A semiautomatic gun yes, and it includes several hunting rifles too.


    Those who want to do something illegal are going to find a way. People still got shot during the assault weapon ban.
    I don't think that guns are evil and I don't think there should be an outright ban on them. I do think that we need tougher regulation, more stringent limitations and restrictions on purchases, a national firearm registry with renewable registrations, and accountability.

    You are right, bad people will find a way to do whatever they are hell bent on doing whether it's legal or not. In the case of firearms, vast majority of them at some point were probably legally purchased and through theft, loss, etc. they end up in people's hands that have no business with them. The ATF traces firearms confiscated by local law enforcement back to their origin-the average "time to crime" from purchase is 10+ years so something happened in the intervening years.
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  23. #98
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,371

    Noted without comment

    "We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons."

    -- Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in a 1994 letter to Congress.
    Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban
    May 05, 1994|WILLIAM J. EATON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

    WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.

    Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.

    Together, the four make a formidable lobby, stretching across a broad ideological spectrum and giving political cover to wavering House members.

    As pressures intensified Wednesday, several lawmakers who had never voted against the National Rifle Assn., the leading opponent of the ban, announced that they would support the measure.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  24. #99
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,787
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    That is funny, when people go shark fishing, they shoot the shark before they bring it on board... with a gun.
    With an AR-15 perhaps. Does the same rules apply to guppies?
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  25. #100
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I don't think that a civilized society has any need for big macs, big gulps, or high fructose corn syrup. Those also kill but I don't think that the government should ban those either. I agree that we should not have automatic weapons, but I question the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban in 1994.

    I rather see a system more like a pilots lesson, where they are required to have so many hours at the rage that could be fully documented by a range master before they can carry. As I said before, time does nothing but training and practice is what makes a difference.

    Since you suggest that we treat them like cars, lets drop the age to 16 to begin the process, establish provisions to allow people from one state to carry in another state or city on public property and in any other location unless it is indicated by a signs that guns are not permitted at that business, arena, office building, or other place.

    I agree that it should not be 'easy' until you have a licence like a CCW or CPL. If I wanted to buy a car, I walk into a dealership test drive something, write him a check. There is some paper work and I drive it home. Same thing with a gun... if you have a licence.



    For the record, the US Supreme court ruled differently multiple times over the past 200 years.



    Assault weapons as I define them (fully automatic), yes. As the State of New York defines them, no. My deer hunting rifle was created to shoot and kill large game animals, yet meets two the the categories listed in the NY law, but mine is more powerful that most of the EVIL ASSAULT RIFLES.

    Most of the differences are pure cosmetic anyways. Should we ban cars that look fast too? After all, the must have been made to speed.
    You lost me the second you compare food with guns. That is a ridiculous, childish argument and does nothing to further the conversation.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

+ Reply to thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 36
    Last post: 13 Sep 2013, 9:41 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last post: 22 Mar 2013, 11:30 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last post: 06 Jan 2007, 9:03 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last post: 11 Feb 2005, 11:39 AM