Fuck yourself, hypocrite.

I know one thing they can do.
In order to buy a gun you have to pass an instant background check. It is a violation of federal law to attempt to buy a gun if know you are ineligible to own one. Over the years hundreds of thousands of people have been prevented from buying a gun by this system. Guess how many have been prosecuted for violation of this federal law? ZERO.

I answered it earlier, our rights are not up for a vote, I did answer it in the post, law abiding citizens rights are not subject to removal due to the actions of criminals (true also for illegal immigration).
If you want to give up your right to own a firearm, don't buy one.

Well that sounds like an excellent proposition. I wonder why people don't do something about it.

rkz, my post wasn't anything about rights. I even conceeded that everyone has the right to own a gun, for the sake of sensible discussion.

I asked for a solution to the problem of illegal gun crimes.

What part of "any" do you have a hard time comprehending? I have the right to own any weapon as long as I'm not physically harming or endangering others with it. Merely owning a weapon doesn't endanger anyone. If I own nukes, I should be able to prove that they are not leaking radiation onto my neighbors. I should be able to prove that I have any bioweapons stored in such a way that there is no way for the germs to escape and endanger my neighbors.

I should be able to own a tank, a fighter jet, or even a nuclear sub complete with nuclear warheads if I can afford it and don't use them to threaten or endanger others.

Oh Spexxvet, I apologize.
I had no idea you would not attempt to defend yourself, and your family, by any means possible. My bad.

Shame about your family, but that's you're right to let the guy with the baseball bat kill them one at a time by smashing their heads to pulp, while you maintain your moral high ground.
Yes sir, you'll show him. Good for you.

The fact of the matter is gun control laws cost human lives and do nothing to prevent crime. Gun control laws have never been about guns. They've been about control...controlling the population and keeping them from being able to mount an effective defense from government tyranny.

Gun control laws worked very well for the Nazi party. They knew exactly which houses to go to in order to disarm people so they would be more easily victimized.

First, I really hope you are not trying to separate the right to own a gun from actually owning one.

Second, I am not a cop, but I do believe decriminalizing drugs will reduce gun crime by at least half, if not two-thirds.
Controlling our borders sensibly will reduce illegal guns entering our country by another significant amount.
The law enforcement freed-up by decriminalizing drugs can then be put to good use actually fighting REAL crime. Government corruption along with those trying to purchase and move guns illegally perhaps?

Well if you decriminalize drugs you've just got a whole different argument to sort out haven't you?

I'm not trying to separate anyones rights from anything. I just asked a question.

I don't think so.
Then again, I don't believe in a totalitarian/nanny government.

It was a leading question.
It implied that those of us legally owning weapons were, somehow, at fault for those illegally in possession of one.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Nope, not a leading question. Just a plain old ordinary every day question. If you were going to give it any title I'd say it'd be hypothetical because any solution anyone suggests is certainly not likely to be enacted any time in the immediate future.

Please don't turn this into another slanging match.

No sweat, if that is not what you meant and you feel that legal gun owners have no connection to illegal gun activity and you had no intention of implying that, please say so.

That was the first line of the post that began this discussion rkz. Have another look if you don't believe me.

I accept your apology. Now go shoot somebody, as you intended.

You can't limit the possible futures of what some may do with legally obtained weapons and should not limit the rights of legal gun owners based on how illegal owners behave. That is all.

I have not suggested that anyone should. Get together with Radar and buy some WMD's if you want.

I asked what to do about the illegal aspects. That is all.

And you heard my answer.

Nope, it's your family being murdered, I won't interfere with your desire to let them be hamburger.

Yep: back in the thread is where it got you. I think that's not a horribly bad result.

Now whether the more the noisier is entirely a good thing... :confused: Too good a case can be made for it being bad or being good. And I don't think anyone here wants to hijack the thread for a discussion of this minor point.

Having had the logic of his argument demolished, Spexx now is reduced to nasty little ad-hominems based upon a bitter resentment of self defense, which judging by his little breakdown a few pages back, Spexx is quite incapable of doing. The gun people do not indulge in what Spexx does; our decision to defend requires us to think more maturely and carefully -- and knowledgeably. Spexx's outbursts sound like they came out of a six-year-old. You won't hear that kind of thing out of the gun people.

Who knows. I just decided to try looking at it from a different angle that's all. I guess maybe people find it difficult to understand.

The only people I intend to shoot are those who intend to infringe upon my rights (including my right to own any number of any type of gun or ammo I please without anyone else's permission or oversight), or who physically harm or endanger me, my family, or my property. If that's you, consider yourself shot.

Or at least shot at.

If I shoot, you'll be shot.

Reducing you to the passive voice.:footpyth:

Why do you pretend the point is guns or defense? For the last few pages, the discussion has been about presumption of intentions. You presumed to know my intentions after having a hissy fit about my presuming to know your intentions. You admitted that you intend to kill someone with the guns you bought. Now, you're trying to spin the issue into my defense of my family, which I never commented on - I merely told you to stop presuming. Please give it up.

No liar, I didn't admit I intend to kill someone with the guns I bought, and that's the fucking point. I said I would use them to keep someone from killing me, but you keep trying to twist the truth to make your illogical point. Everybody but you knows you're wrong and I've a feeling from your lies, you do too.

If I have to, I'll use guns to protect my loved ones.
You use;

I understand what "any" means, but I don't always get the same answer when I ask others what they mean by "any".
Prove to whom? Do they have the right to make your ownership rights contingent on regular inspections and code compliance? How would they know to make those inspections - should you have to register the weapons with the inspectors in order to own them?

:corn: Keep going everyone, keep going.

This, gay marriage laws, pro-lifers, dress code laws for kids (yes, some towns have them), PMRC, the FCC's bullshit, etc, etc, etc... is all the same bullshit.
Some people believe they are better than others and they should be able to tell their neighbors how to live their life, what they should be able to do and what they should not be able to do, what they should be able to say and what they should not be able to say.
They will swear they do not want one while doing their damnedest to implement an oligarchy, theocracy or other form of oppressive, nanny, government.
This mindset is AFRAID of freedom or it resents anyone who thinks differently than they do. Honestly that is cool, as long as one does nothing about it... but these people try to change legislation to inhibit others from expressing alternate thoughts.
They don't like freedom.
I have said it before.
Freedom means that you must contend with other's ideas and actions as expressions of their freedom, just like you will.
What these people hate more than anything are those who do not agree with them... they cannot handle freedom, because freedom is not about them, it is about everyone.
We have seen it in here. People who cannot handle something as simple as someone disagreeing with them. In a free society it is simple, if you don't like a TV program, you don't watch it; if you don't like a radio station, you don't listen to it; if you don't like a certain type of film, don't go and if you don't like guns, you just don't buy one.

You'd have to prove it to your neighbors if they claimed you were endangering them. Actually it goes the other way. They would have to prove you were endangering them in order to take any actions against you. If they made such claims and had enough evidence to get a trial, you'd then have to prove your storage was safe.....or nuke the court.

i'm kind of an outsider on this - but i'm curious - i don't think i read or maybe didn't understand - how would spexxvet protect his family if presented with the situation given of a threatening intruder? i know you all gave examples of "poison & guns" purchasing them without the intent to do harm unless provoked - the same could be said about "swords". we have couple that we purchased as christmas gifts - only because my son thought they were "cool". as stated before we don't have any guns so - what if I used that? not that i would even remember having it. would i just "point & stick" - no pun intended. just wondering.

So you don't have to prove you're handling it properly.

How are they supposed to know whether you're endangering them until it's too late?

The Cellar Cookie AI is long fabled in song and story.

The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who are making accusations of impropriety or especially those making accusations of endangerment.

I'd imagine if they started losing hair for no apparent reason and found that there was radiation coming from a house, they'd probably be able to figure it out.

Yes, I'm pleasantly familiar with the fabled cellar cookie ai. I was dazzled by the synchronicity of this cookie in this thread.

I'm having a hard time following how you drew that conclusion from this thread. Would you take me step by step through your thought process?

Like I said. Too late.

Spex says that's proof positive you bought that sword with intent of stabbing someone.

First, you hypocritically presume to know my intentions, now you presume to speak for me. Just shut the fuck up, you dumb cocksucker.

I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex.
Just call me the dickhead's disciple.

I agree with some of this and disagree with others.

First of all, it is stupid for people to think they know how to control other people's lives or tell people how to live "the right way", because there isn't a single way. That goes for both ways. Some societies can function perfectly with guns and some can function perfectly without guns.

Yes, a lot of talk on gun control is about controlling other people but a lot of it is also safety. We should be able to protect yourself but you can't just own something because you can. I can't own a nuke because 50 million other lives should not be put in danger because I am on a power trip and are pathetically attempting to justify it by saying I should be able to own it because I can.

I am very strongly against total gun control but there are limits. You have every right (as much as I hate saying someone has rights) to protect yourself but there is a limit. Owning a rocket launcher has nothing to do with protection unless you are planning on protecting yourself against an armored vehicle which is ludicrous. You don't need an automatic weapon to protect yourself, you just need a pistol or a rifle and a few good shots.

When it comes to personal items that are made to kill another animal, you should only use what you need. To go above that level is a display of power, which is just as bad as gun control.




You are missing the point. I am not scared of guns and I don't want some banned and regulated because I don't like them. A TV program can not kill someone, a radio station can not kill someone, a film can not kill someone, a gun can kill someone. Take drunk driving for example. You can say, if you don't like drunk driving then don't do it, but by you drinking and driving you are putting everyone else's life in danger. Some people can handle drinking and driving and some can't, which is why we have a law. Some people can handle guns in a safe manner and some can't, that is why we have regulations.

Driving is not a protected right, gun ownership is. Many things can kill, chainsaws, knives, baseball bats... The regulations you are talking about for guns are already in place. In may area, far too many.
If regular citizens don't need automatic weapons, neither do the police. You made an excellent argument there... however I am getting my class 3 license.

Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats can kill, but just because something has the potential to kill doesn't mean that it has to be banned. If an item proves to be used in many killings whether intentional or unintentional, looking into regulations and banning may be necessary for that particular society to function more efficiently. If only one person died from drunk driving a year it wouldn't have been banned even if it posed the same threat to other drivers. If there was only one gun death a year, there would be no talk about it.

Intentions also have a part in it. Chainsaws, knives, and baseball bats are made for other purposes other than killing.

So are guns.

I said "made for".

Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.

If a gun were made that could do everything it can currently do other than killing, would that be an improvement?

The answer is yes for chainsaws, knives, baseball bats, and cars.

I have seen and owned many guns that were made solely for the purpose of:
art
being a collectible item
target shooting, both competitive and hobby
skeet shooting
cross country skiing completions
and others
You have no idea of what you speak.

If I promise, cross my heart, to sell, destroy any weapons that I might have, will it stop this horse shit?
Damn. I can't believe folks let kids jack them up. Take a break!

Guns are made for lots of things and not all of them are killing. In fact killing isn't even the main reason guns are made. Those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.

The knife (and in fact all sharp blades) were made for both killing (hunting) and for food preparation. The first knives were made from sharp rocks. Only later were blades used for other things like cutting down trees. This is where the chainsaw came from.

The baseball bat is a modern version of the club which also goes back to caveman days and was also used for the killing of animals, and other cavemen.

Cars were meant for transportation, but like the knife, and the bat, and the gun, it can be made into a weapon. There is no inanimate object that is inherently made for killing. Nuclear weapons weren't even made for killing. They were made for defending, and for letting others know they shouldn't attack us. Nuclear weapons, guns, and all weapons have a main purpose and that purpose is to PREVENT killing by giving us a means to defend ourselves and hopefully scare off would-be attackers.

Actually no, the Nuke was pretty specifically made just to kill and end WWII, and later ADAPTED to use as deterrent.

Guns are made to make money, just like everything else. If there were no profit in it, the only guns would be homemade ones. This may not be a terribly useful thought, but it's another tangent for those grasping at straws to keep this thread going....

here's another.

The constitution gives right to bear arms/bare arms/whatever. Would it be unconstitutional to insist that everyone had a gun? Is there a right to be unarmed? Would gun crime be reduced if everyone were armed?

Uh oh, we've already been down that bumpy, dead-end road. Or maybe it was more of a cul-de-sac, or roundabout.

I have no idea what I speak? Maybe you should try to understand what I say before you rant on something I am not talking about.

I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.

:D

OK let's try the kindergarten approach......

next one to post is a big fat bottom burp :D

Whoops, that's me! I had too much fiber today. :o

I can tell right now where your difficulty lies: you're denying that it is possible to kill rightly, in defense of self or other. That something is lethal, whether gun, sword, or big wet rock, merely suits it to the task, however onerous and troublesome that task may be. But then, it's definitely troublesome to get murdered. And one must never deny that we've the right to self-defense by any means whatsoever -- for to try and put a lid on self-defense only opens up the way for crimes not only by evilly disposed individuals -- as in England-- but by evilly-disposed states like Nazi Germany and the People's Democratic Republic of Kampuchea. Such states present a very large problem, and both their flourishing and their ending are immensely destructive. Germany was left a pile of broken brick, Pol Pot's Kampuchea a ghost town.

In a good many countries, a highly-motivated, well-organized sociopath can go very far -- particularly in countries that are not democracies. The problem with such places is that a sociopathic head of state ends up heading up a sociopathic state. Then you get Amin's Uganda and Saddam's Iraq.

I say humanity does not have to put up with such monsters, and should uniformly hunt them down and kill them off, but I see I digress from the focus of the thread. Nonetheless, there is a simple and clear continuity between what begins this post and where it ends.

Actually, it doesn't "give" the right; it acknowledges that the right exists already, inhering in being a human.

Yeah, but unarmed is also imprudent, assuming (and one is so very often safe in so assuming) the possessor is sound of mind. One can bring to mind many, well, unfortunate uses of the First Amendment right of free speech here in this Cellar -- some have shown the rest of us that they hold to beliefs that turn them into right bastards.

The most careful and largest study says yes. John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime -- very illuminating.