[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32401329]So? What does it matter if the country was founded on it? Times change, and if you're putting down good laws (not saying this is a good law or whatever) because they don't fit in with the constitution, there is something wrong with the constitution.[/QUOTE]So ban people from having certain weapons because they are dangerous? Enthusiasts enjoy having big guns. It's an American thing. America has these freedoms for a reason, though sadly they are being done away with. Slowly, but still...
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32401335]No actually, the reason Cameron wanted to ban pointed knives was the prohibition of firearms in Britain shoved knife crime up over 300%. And sharpening to a blade is not as hard as sharpening to a point, you could sharpen the end of a curved knife, making a continuing blade that will still cut into someone.
As for being hard to kill someone by slashing them, as long as you know where to slash, they'll bleed out. Hence your suicide argument being invalidated, as more commonly knife deaths from suicide are slashing wounds to vital veins and arteries, causing the person to bleed to death, rather than a stabbing wound.
Then there's survivalism. I find it disgusting that Boy Scouts in Britain, Lord Baden Powell's home country, are not allowed to practice knife skills for survival situations, something the Boy Scouts are based upon. I'm sure he is rolling in his grave right now. You can't say that you'd be able to survive a wilderness situation with only a curved knife, the design and use of blades in survival situations, especially for giving someone a fighting chance against certain wildlife, requires the pointed end.
Either way, how the hell could you possibly be arguing IN FAVOUR of banning a necessary tool? Pointed knives have a multitude of necessary uses, a prohibition of them would be downright stupid. Not to mention how much history it ruins, banning blades with a point essentially bans a large section of Britain's tourism, the renaissance and medieval reenactments. You ban pointed blades, you ban the swords the reenactment people and tourist actors use, which could hit tourist revenues pretty hard.[/QUOTE]
I swear that reenactment blades, swords and knives are blunted significantly, otherwise it wouldn't be so much of a reenactment.
Banning points on knives?
What good will that do, A strong enough push in the right direction will severly injure. Unless they are designed to break when stabbing.
People will kill others with any tool at hand. Hell, when it comes down to it people will kill with their bare hands.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32401363]I swear that reenactment blades, swords and knives are blunted significantly, otherwise it wouldn't be so much of a reenactment.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Reenacting the Battle of Hastings with actual blades would be pretty grisley.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32401329]So? What does it matter if the country was founded on it? Times change, and if you're putting down good laws (not saying this is a good law or whatever) because they don't fit in with the constitution, there is something wrong with the constitution.[/QUOTE]
"what does it matter if the country was founded on it"
you's ignorant
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32401602]"what does it matter if the country was founded on it"
you's ignorant[/QUOTE]Yes, he is.
[QUOTE=faze;32399772]Yeah, blame Clinton for not being able to buy a new fully automatic weapon. Also blame him for making them cost 12 grand or more. I'm told there are temporary modifications you can do to an AK to make it full auto, though this is illegal.[/QUOTE]
Ronald Reagan passed the bill banning sale of new automatic weapons to civilians, in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act
[QUOTE=Ridge;32401634]Ronald Reagan passed the bill banning sale of new automatic weapons to civilians, in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act[/QUOTE]I stand corrected. Though, Clinton played a part in that somehow.
[QUOTE=faze;32401667]I stand corrected. Though, Clinton played a part in that somehow.[/QUOTE]
How could he have? Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas at the time, and in the middle of revitalizing the schools in that state.
Face it, Bill Clinton did not ban your automatic weapons.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32401767]How could he have? Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas at the time, and in the middle of revitalizing the schools in that state.
Face it, Bill Clinton did not ban your automatic weapons.[/QUOTE]When he was in office, he passed a lot of anti gun legislature I am saying.
[QUOTE=faze;32401792]When he was in office, he passed a lot of anti gun legislature I am saying.[/QUOTE]
Honestly if you were under the impression he banned an entire category of weapons when he did nothing of the sort, any other similar claims are dubious without a source.
He passed the Brady Bill with the help of Reagan's Press Secretary, and all that did was add a 5 day waiting period for handguns.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban only banned some semi-automatic weapons, and that expired in 2004 anyway.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32401860]Honestly if you were under the impression he banned an entire category of weapons when he did nothing of the sort, any other similar claims are dubious without a source.
He passed the Brady Bill with the help of Reagan's Press Secretary, and all that did was add a 5 day waiting period for handguns.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban only banned some semi-automatic weapons, and that expired in 2004 anyway.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=138&issue=28[/url]
[QUOTE=faze;32401880][url]http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=138&issue=28[/url][/QUOTE]
Hmm, NRA or Wikipedia, NRA or Wikipedia?
I think I'll stick with Wikipedia:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration[/url]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32401906]Hmm, NRA or Wikipedia, NRA or Wikipedia?
I think I'll stick with Wikipedia:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration[/url][/QUOTE]NRA cites facts too. Who cares which direction they lean.
[QUOTE=faze;32401919]NRA cites facts too. Who cares which direction they lean.[/QUOTE]
There's no works cited page, and most of the restrictions it makes mention of are waiting periods and registration lists, hardly "taking your guns away".
Not to mention it ends on a note like this:
Thus, on Sept. 14, 2004, Bill of Rights activists may wake up to find that the Clinton anti-gun legacy has been almost entirely erased. As President Ford once said, in a different context, "Our long national nightmare is over."
Implying that all gun rights are now gone?
There are many sides to this case and many view points. There is not really a right or wrong solution.
Take Norway (where I'm from) No good would come from make it legal for everyone to own guns. You can own guns in Norway, but you need to be a member of a gun club or have a hunting license. I think this is perfect.
Though... Making guns "illegal" in US would also be stupid. It should never have been like it is in the first place. Now it's too late to do anything about it. [I]You[/I] really [I]do[/I] need your guns to defend your selves. (high crime rate, lots of guns on the black market) We don't... (low crime rate, and not really a big black market for guns ((not saying there isn't one, it's just not really big))
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32401984]There's no works cited page, and most of the restrictions it makes mention of are waiting periods and registration lists, hardly "taking your guns away".
Not to mention it ends on a note like this:
Thus, on Sept. 14, 2004, Bill of Rights activists may wake up to find that the Clinton anti-gun legacy has been almost entirely erased. As President Ford once said, in a different context, "Our long national nightmare is over."
Implying that all gun rights are now gone?[/QUOTE]Works cited page...they cite common knowledge. This isn't 6th grade language arts class.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;32401363]I swear that reenactment blades, swords and knives are blunted significantly, otherwise it wouldn't be so much of a reenactment.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the kinds of re-enactment. They'd likely not battle with them, but people who do it for the looks often wants as close to authenticity as possible. That, and just the fact that they're blade-shaped is often enough under these kinds of dumb bans, meaning even the blunt ones would be banned if they're made of metal.
Also, I've heard the theatres in London have to register their plastic swords, is this correct? Seems a bit stupid, but I wouldn't put it past Cameron to do something retarded like that.
[QUOTE=faze;32402126]Works cited page...they cite common knowledge. This isn't 6th grade language arts class.[/QUOTE]
Even disregarding that, I've pointed out the flaws in your source.
So he passed a bunch of waiting periods, background checks, and gun registries. Where's the part where he takes your guns away?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32401860]Honestly if you were under the impression he banned an entire category of weapons when he did nothing of the sort, any other similar claims are dubious without a source.
He passed the Brady Bill with the help of Reagan's Press Secretary, and all that did was add a 5 day waiting period for handguns.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban only banned some semi-automatic weapons, and that expired in 2004 anyway.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco#Controversies_in_the_United_States[/url]
The Clinton Administration banned imports on all Chinese made firearms except shotguns, Bush then later banned all of them. You can get them if they're already in the States, but it eliminates the opportunity for Americans to get a cheap alternative firearm to the authentic SKS, M4, M14, and several other notable military firearms. I know Norinco makes the cheapest AR-Platform weapons available in Canada, helps shooters on a budget get a good, cheap gun, meanwhile it may be the most expensive AR platform weapon the the States because no more of them are entering the country.
While he never banned a specific class of firearm, he did ban a specific nationality of firearm.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32402180]Even disregarding that, I've pointed out the flaws in your source.
So he passed a bunch of waiting periods, background checks, and gun registries. Where's the part where he takes your guns away?[/QUOTE]Why have all the waiting periods and checks and shit. I can buy a scoped Mosin anywhere in the country and walk out minutes later with it. I can be more accurate with that than any full auto weapon. Mosins are not regulated, therefore you are only checked for felony convictions and outstanding warrants. It's halfway done. Do it right, or don't do it at all. Personally, everyone should be able to own a gun legally unless convicted of a violent crime, which goes back to the point regarding quick background checks. That is all you need.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32402204][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norinco#Controversies_in_the_United_States[/url]
The Clinton Administration banned imports on all Chinese made firearms except shotguns, Bush then later banned all of them. You can get them if they're already in the States, but it eliminates the opportunity for Americans to get a cheap alternative firearm to the authentic SKS, M4, M14, and several other notable military firearms. I know Norinco makes the cheapest AR-Platform weapons available in Canada, helps shooters on a budget get a good, cheap gun, meanwhile it may be the most expensive AR platform weapon the the States because no more of them are entering the country.
While he never banned a specific class of firearm, he did ban a specific nationality of firearm.[/QUOTE]AR and reliable do not belong together, but I agree with the rest.
I've always maintained that criminals are going to get firearms no matter what, gun control only hurts is a law abiding citizens.
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;32402772]I've always maintained that criminals are going to get firearms no matter what, gun control only hurts is a law abiding citizens.[/QUOTE]
Mexico is a great example of that. There is but a single gun store in the whole country, located in Mexico City, on a military base. Seems like there would be quite a few security barriers to get a weapon there.
Yet the cartels have full auto machine guns and rocket launchers at their disposable, and plentiful enough for them to be used regularly.
[QUOTE=aydin690;32386614]Why do citizens need guns in the first place? For some reason, americans (and only americans) think guns protect people.[/QUOTE] oh yeah? And what the fuck are you gonna do when a big ass bear is chasing you through really thick woods? Fight it? Or a pack of wolves? Yeah, guns DO protect people.
[editline]21st September 2011[/editline]
And another thing, what the fuck are you gonna do when some dick you pissed off comes crashing through your door at night to kill you? Or even just some young thugs just shooting at your house? You never know.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32401906]Hmm, NRA or Wikipedia, NRA or Wikipedia?
I think I'll stick with Wikipedia:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration[/url][/QUOTE]
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. You can have some kid that writes "I like huge tits" on a page and the Wikipedia editors won't find it until it's reported or when they do their weekly checks and shit.
I know, some people in the NRA make you want to punch them in the face, but who said their news was unreliable?
[QUOTE=ShadoWxAssassiN;32403553]Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. You can have some kid that writes "I like huge tits" on a page and the Wikipedia editors won't find it until it's reported or when they do their weekly checks and shit.
I know, some people in the NRA make you want to punch them in the face, but who said their news was unreliable?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and you can always find logs of the edits and admins are on watch for new changes, don't act like it's a barely moderated site with no fact-checking.
[QUOTE=faze;32399647]Full auto requires a class 3 license and the weapon must be made before 1986[/QUOTE]
That is incorrect. Class 3 licenses are for the sale and manufacture of fully automatic weapons, not ownership.
[QUOTE=faze;32402254]Why have all the waiting periods and checks and shit. I can buy a scoped Mosin anywhere in the country and walk out minutes later with it. I can be more accurate with that than any full auto weapon. Mosins are not regulated, therefore you are only checked for felony convictions and outstanding warrants. It's halfway done. Do it right, or don't do it at all. Personally, everyone should be able to own a gun legally unless convicted of a violent crime, which goes back to the point regarding quick background checks. That is all you need.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
AR and reliable do not belong together, but I agree with the rest.[/QUOTE]
AR-platform weapons are perfectly reliable as long as they are taken care of. Please stop flooding the thread with inane posts.
[QUOTE=Kiwi Bird;32401026]The second amendment here in the U.S. guarantees the right to bear arms, so citizens have to be able to own some kind of weapon. But personally I believe that certain weapons should be restricted (like you need a special license to own certain more dangerous guns like handguns), and some banned from entering civilian hands. I mean seriously, will a citizen ever need a .50 anti-material rifle to defend themselves?[/QUOTE]
Well, one of the major reasons the Second Amendment was created was so citizens could defend themselves in case of attack from a criminal and also from foreign invaders, which was a looming threat at the time considering they had just won a war against one of the most powerful empires in the world.
However, there was another reason for it. See, the Founding Fathers had a thought about the future of the country as uncertain. Therefore, at any point one administration could decide to just fuck the whole Constitution sideways and then establish something of a totalitarian dictatorship. This is why they wanted citizens to have weaponry, because if their government no longer abided by the Constitution and begun actively oppressing its citizens, then the citizens could easily start an uprising against the government and return it to its correct pre-dictatorship government.
This is why the Second Amendment doesn't bar citizens from owning any particular piece of weaponry, because the Founding Fathers wanted everybody to be armed so the government would have to respect their Constitutional rights or else face an uprising at the hands of its citizens. Of course, I don't completely believe in this philosophy now that we have much more devastating weaponry (i.e. atomic bombs), but the government shouldn't ban any small-arms weaponry. Instead, the government should regulate the weapons trade but not inhibit it in any way, because criminals will always find a way to get weapons, but your average citizen might not. Therefore, weaponry should be open to anyone who wants it, after taking safety courses, background checks, and other licensing exams to be sure that they are capable of using them.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32402855]Mexico is a great example of that. There is but a single gun store in the whole country, located in Mexico City, on a military base. Seems like there would be quite a few security barriers to get a weapon there.
Yet the cartels have full auto machine guns and rocket launchers at their disposable, and plentiful enough for them to be used regularly.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105848207]The cartels are getting their weapons in the US[/url], to be fair.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32404539][url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105848207]The cartels are getting their weapons in the US[/url], to be fair.[/QUOTE]
A small percentage. Most of the weapons they have are stolen from the police/military or shipped in from other latin countries.
Why spend $800 on a Bushmaster semi-auto AR-15 when that can buy 2 or 3 full auto Norinco AK-47s?
[QUOTE=Ridge;32404579]A small percentage. Most of the weapons they have are stolen from the police/military or shipped in from other latin countries.
Why spend $800 on a Bushmaster semi-auto AR-15 when that can buy 2 or 3 full auto Norinco AK-47s?[/QUOTE]
Do you happen to have a breakdown of where guns in Mexico come from? I'm interested.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
