Gun retailers stop selling guns and ammo to police - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696787]I've never drawn my own line, congratulations on the deduction there, I've drawn my line on DDs in conformation with the NFA.[/QUOTE] Surely this is kind of a pointless argument to make considering that it is entirely possible for the intents of laws to conflict, and we're not having an argument over what the current law [I]is,[/I] but more one about what it should be.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39696672]i know kopimi doesn't really think we should be allowed nuclear weapons for personal use but i wouldn't mind having one [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] it would certainly keep the govt. from treading on me[/QUOTE] I wouldn't turn one down if it was gifted to me but as is I don't know where I'd put it

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696763]So it's the amount of damage then? Is it because a bullet can realistically hit only one or two people at a time? By that thinking it seems there should be a distinction between weapons that fire different types of bullets at different rates, because that too is a difference in the 'time to deal out the full capacity of damage'.[/QUOTE] Except the difference between types of bullets and rate of fire is much smaller compared to full explosives. The bombing of hiroshima was 99-166 thousand people injured/dead according to wikipedia. That happened in mere seconds. It would take quite some time to rack up that many people with even the craziest fully automatic weapon you could find. And you would be stopped way before then by law enforcement.

unbelievably retarded 'protest'

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696778]"haha! i dont define what a destructive device is, stupid, the government does! take THAT!" "oh an ar15 a destructive device? the government says so? no thats ridiculous, of course not!"[/QUOTE] Alright I'll elaborate. The National Firearms Act of 1934 defines destructive devices. Nice jobs shoving words in my mouth.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39696794]How about instead of sarcastic sniveling you give everyone your definition of destructive device?[/QUOTE] a nuclear weapon? whatever the current definition is i dont give a shit thats not the point

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696707]So again, assuming we're not talking about WMDs necessarily, what about rocket launchers and higher-yield explosives?[/QUOTE] we can already have rocket launchers and higher-yield explosives, and I have yet to see any reports of any harm caused by them

The argument against gun control by using nuclear weapons is the most ridiculous fallacious argument I've ever heard. The magnitudes of the two are not even comparable. The only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to completely eradicate the population of a large geographic area all at once, whereas all types of firearms have completely legitimate sporting purposes and important collector's value, they are not, as some ignorantly propagate, simply designed for killing. For those who are going to counter this with "Well I collect nuclear weapons..." No, you don't, nobody does, nobody can, and nobody should due to the extreme danger a nuclear weapon poses, not to mention that it has no sporting purpose whatsoever. You cannot kill hundreds of thousands of people in less than a second and make a whole city uninhabitable with a single gun, and you can't hunt deer or protect your house with a nuclear weapon, nor can you protect your nation from tyranny, due to the fact that the nuke would make your country uninhabitable, which is completely counterproductive when you're trying to reclaim that land from a tyranny. Now stop it with this ridiculous nonsense.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39696816]we can already have rocket launchers and higher-yield explosives, and I have yet to see any reports of any harm caused by them[/QUOTE] can you pick one up at a gun shop without registering it or filing any paperwork? and is it legal to buy one from a dude on craigslist?

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696802]Except the difference between types of bullets and rate of fire is much smaller compared to full explosives. The bombing of hiroshima was 99-166 thousand people injured/dead according to wikipedia. That happened in mere seconds. It would take quite some time to rack up that many people with even the craziest fully automatic weapon you could find.[/QUOTE] You would at least have to admit that this is an arbitrary distinction to be making though, right? How is it consistent to say "well for explosive devices the issue is how fast you can damage things with it, but when it comes to conventional firearms that doesn't really matter"? [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39696816]we can already have rocket launchers and higher-yield explosives, and I have yet to see any reports of any harm caused by them[/QUOTE] So what is, in your opinion, too harmful to own, if anything? An armed M1 Abrams tank maybe?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696681]the constitution is an aging document written in a time where the military matched the might of the people, it also was written by slave owners and forgot to give women and black people rights. not the kind of document i would hold to such a high standard. gun ownership i see largely as a hobby tho it does serve self defense purposes which is why ive never advocated a ban on guns, just registration[/QUOTE] i don't think you ever advocated a ban on guns, but you keep referring to gun ownership as a hobby. It's a individual right according to the Constitution, and verified numerous times by the supreme court. And the Constitution was intended to be a "living document" as thomas jefferson once said. We've been constantly molding the advancement of american society around the constitution without repealing any amendments. We have considered the 1st amendment when addressing internet privacy, the 14th amendment when addressing abortion. We can find a way to decrease gun violence and keep the 2nd amendment in the constitution. The founding fathers obviously didn't include amendments for these modern issues. "Because progress demands it" shouldn't become an excuse to dispose of one of the pillars of our republic. The constitution has defended the american public for 225 years, despite continued assaults, and I'll continue to hold it in high regard. and unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed, gun ownership legally remains a right of the people.

I'd think this is a clever form of protest if I didn't already know it was a cynical and underhanded attempt to make more money off of scared people.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696825]You would at least have to admit that this is an arbitrary distinction to be making though, right? How is it consistent to say "well for explosive devices the issue is how fast you can damage things with it, but when it comes to conventional firearms that doesn't really matter"? [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] So what is, in your opinion, too harmful to own, if anything? An armed M1 Abrams tank maybe?[/QUOTE] we can already own M1 Abrams tanks, and I have yet to see any reports of any harm caused by them

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39696820]The argument against gun control by using nuclear weapons is the most ridiculous fallacious argument I've ever heard. The magnitudes of the two are not even comparable. The only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to completely eradicate the population of a large geographic area all at once, whereas all types of firearms have completely legitimate sporting purposes and important collector's value, they are not, as some ignorantly propagate, simply designed for killing. For those who are going to counter this with "Well I collect nuclear weapons..." No, you don't, nobody does, nobody can, and nobody should due to the extreme danger a nuclear weapon poses, not to mention that it has no sporting purpose whatsoever. You cannot kill hundreds of thousands of people in less than a second and make a whole city uninhabitable with a single gun, and you can't hunt deer or protect your house with a nuclear weapon, nor can you protect your nation from tyranny, due to the fact that the nuke would make your country uninhabitable, which is completely counterproductive when you're trying to reclaim that land from a tyranny. Now stop it with this ridiculous nonsense.[/QUOTE] i could hunt / collect nukes regardless of your (common sense) assumptions whether you want to admit it or not you're drawing a line on whats acceptable here. you say you could not make an entire city uninhabitable with a gun, true. i could say you couldn't kill 50 people from 30 yards away with a knife. in the end youre drawing a line and deciding what amount of damage you find acceptable, and determining what possible non-violent uses you find acceptable. our opinions on where that line falls is different, but pretending you're somehow just upholding principles and not making arbitrary lines in the sand on who can own what is stupid

Why not just set up state owned firearm factories?

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39696847]we can already own M1 Abrams tanks, and I have yet to see any reports of any harm caused by them[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39696824]can you pick one up at a gun shop without registering it or filing any paperwork? and is it legal to buy one from a dude on craigslist?[/QUOTE] and can they be fully operational and operated without licensing or training, as well as loaded and fired without supervision from an expert, or done so in a civilian area?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696825]You would at least have to admit that this is an arbitrary distinction to be making though, right? How is it consistent to say "well for explosive devices the issue is how fast you can damage things with it, but when it comes to conventional firearms that doesn't really matter"? [/QUOTE] I'm saying these things go into their own catagories. Guns should be compared to other guns, and explosives should be compared to explosives. Not guns to explosives. Just like you wouldn't compare a knife to a gun, or a random object I could bash someone with to a knife. When laws are to be made regulating these things they should be made separately. Separate laws for explosives and guns, not one blanket law for all of them.

What point are you even trying to make? 'Ha ha, this issue is complicated and the law has to make arbitrary lines. Therefore, my arbitrary line is better than yours!'

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696855]and can they be fully operational and operated with licensing or training, as well as loaded and fired without supervision from an expert, or done so in a civilian area?[/QUOTE] No, because that would be pointless and hilariously expensive. Are you going to keep dancing around the conversation or are you actually going to come to a point with this.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696825]So what is, in your opinion, too harmful to own, if anything? An armed M1 Abrams tank maybe?[/QUOTE] As it stands, it's not illegal to own and operate armed tanks as long as you have the proper licensing for the weapons systems. General Dynamics does not permit the M1 design to be sold on civilian markets. If nothing changes, you will be able to purchase them demilitarized from military auctions when they are decommissioned and replaced, then, with the aforementioned proper licensing, rebuild and re-arm them. Individual tanks are easy to disable if response teams are prepared to deal with the situation.

[QUOTE=legolover122;39696856]I'm saying these things go into their own catagories. Guns should be compared to other guns, and explosives should be compared to explosives. Not guns to explosives. Just like you wouldn't compare a knife to a gun, or a random object I could bash someone with to a knife. When laws are to be made regulating these things they should be made separately. Separate laws for explosives and guns, not one blanket law for all of them.[/QUOTE] then at that point you're just arbitrarily deciding the magnification of your classifications in order to preserve your personal preference on what should be regulated and what shouldn't. guns and explosives are both forms of weaponry so they can fall under the same category. on the same token don't make blanket laws allowing modern firearms, we can regulate those and leave muskets unregulated

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696855]and can they be fully operational and operated without licensing or training, as well as loaded and fired without supervision from an expert, or done so in a civilian area?[/QUOTE] well if you want it to be road legal you have to file paperwork for it, and you have to find rubber treads for it nothing else is necessary

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696861]No, because that would be pointless and hilariously expensive. Are you going to keep dancing around the conversation or are you actually going to come to a point with this.[/QUOTE] ? my point is that we regulate tanks and explosives even though buttsex keeps using them as examples of why guns don't need to be regulated lol

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39696835]We've been constantly molding the advancement of american society around the constitution without repealing any amendments.[/quote] Even though the 19th Amendment overruled a Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment (in which they determined it did not give women the right to vote), and the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment (to overturn prohibition of alcohol)? [QUOTE=Disotrtion;39696835]"Because progress demands it" shouldn't become an excuse to dispose of one of the pillars of our republic. The constitution has defended the american public for 225 years, despite continued assaults, and I'll continue to hold it in high regard.[/quote] Well the constitution itself doesn't have any inherent value, as no law really does, but it's a stable reference point for the creation of new laws, and still needs adjustment and revision as years go on.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696825] So what is, in your opinion, too harmful to own, if anything? An armed M1 Abrams tank maybe?[/QUOTE] We can own fully armed tanks, and people do [img]http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/10/64/42/2312322/5/628x471.jpg[/img] Dont think theres a single recorded incident of a legal, privately owned tank being used in a crime.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696875]? my point is that we regulate tanks and explosives even though buttsex keeps using them as examples of why guns don't need to be regulated lol[/QUOTE] other people are bringing up tanks and explosives you ninny

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696867] guns and explosives are both forms of weaponry so they can fall under the same category.[/QUOTE] That's your own arbitrary line you've managed to bring up far too many times.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696824]can you pick one up at a gun shop without registering it or filing any paperwork? and is it legal to buy one from a dude on craigslist?[/QUOTE] I found mine lying in the street. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XAj6ol.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696875]? my point is that we regulate tanks and explosives even though buttsex keeps using them as examples of why guns don't need to be regulated lol[/QUOTE] You brought them up. "if you're going to make a shitty point stand by it"

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;39696879]We can own fully armed tanks, and people do [img]http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/10/64/42/2312322/5/628x471.jpg[/img] Dont think theres a single recorded incident of a legal, privately owned tank being used in a crime.[/QUOTE] might have something to do with the proliferation of privately owned tanks, the expenses involved in owning one, etc.. [QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39696871]well if you want it to be road legal you have to file paperwork for it, and you have to find rubber treads for it nothing else is necessary[/QUOTE] and can their weapons systems be functioning