Gun retailers stop selling guns and ammo to police - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ridge;39696883]I found mine lying in the street. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XAj6ol.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I'm fairly certain that's a hollowed-out metal tube.

Seriously either your argument is 'arbitrary lines are stupid', therefore both sides are stupid, or 'arbitrary lines are useless', in which case proposed arbitrary distinctions are stupid. It's an argument of distraction, a fucking chewbacca defense

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696882]That's your own arbitrary line you've managed to bring up far too many times.[/QUOTE] i never denied that lol

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696850]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[/QUOTE] No, you can't, you can't hunt with a nuke because there's nothing left to eat, and you can't collect nukes, ever, at all, in any functioning capacity. You're pulling at straws to try and support useless efforts since you've ran out of legitimate arguments. The reason knives and guns are not banned, and why conventional explosives aren't technically either, is because they all have a legitimate purpose under the 2nd Amendment or a legitimate sporting or utilitarian purpose. Nuclear weapons do not. It is not an arbitrary line, it is a very well defined and clear line, the 2nd does not, cannot, and will not ever cover nuclear weapons or other WMDs because they cannot be adequately used to overthrow a tyranny, since the nation you are protecting would cease to exist following the use of a local "nuclear defence." They will also not be legal in any other capacity because there is no legitimate sporing purpose for them, nor any utilitarian purpose for them such as avalanche control or rock blasting. The only capacity you could ever hope to "collect" nukes in is owning a deactivated, non-irradiated shell of a bomb, and all of these, to my knowledge, exist in museums.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696895]might have something to do with the proliferation of privately owned tanks, the expenses involved in owning one, etc.. and can their weapons systems be functioning[/QUOTE] Yes they can be it's been stated several times don't just ignore text you don't want to acknowledge as truth

[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][/QUOTE] Are you actually capable of going out and firing it? If I had to guess I would reckon there are some pretty strict regulations on that.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696897]I'm fairly certain that's a hollowed-out metal tube.[/QUOTE] It's a spent AT-4 rocket tube

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696867]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] Knives, blunt objects, guns and nuclear weapons are all viable weapons, so they all fall under the same catagory. Ban all of em. Flawless logic there. No. It's not entirely arbitrary. Just applying a little bit of logic and the lines form themselves.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696908]Are you actually capable of going out and firing it? If I had to guess I would reckon there are some pretty strict regulations on that.[/QUOTE] Yes you are and yes there are but you can do it if you prove that you aren't a villain [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;39696904]No, you can't, you can't hunt with a nuke because there's nothing left to eat, and you can't collect nukes, ever, at all, in any functioning capacity. You're pulling at straws to try and support useless efforts since you've ran out of legitimate arguments. The reason knives and guns are not banned, and why conventional explosives aren't technically either, is because they all have a legitimate purpose under the 2nd Amendment or a legitimate sporting or utilitarian purpose. Nuclear weapons do not. It is not an arbitrary line, it is a very well defined and clear line, the 2nd does not, cannot, and will not ever cover nuclear weapons or other WMDs because they cannot be adequately used to overthrow a tyranny, since the nation you are protecting would cease to exist following the use of a local "nuclear defence." They will also not be legal in any other capacity because there is no legitimate sporing purpose for them, nor any utilitarian purpose for them such as avalanche control or rock blasting. The only capacity you could ever hope to "collect" nukes in is owning a deactivated, non-irradiated shell of a bomb, and all of these, to my knowledge, exist in museums.[/QUOTE] I've seen a few empty Minuteman warheads for sale actually

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696910]It's a spent AT-4 rocket tube[/QUOTE] [nerde]M72 LAW[/nerde]

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696910]It's a spent AT-4 rocket tube[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that's what I said. It's not an AT-4 either.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39696895]might have something to do with the proliferation of privately owned tanks, the expenses involved in owning one, etc.. and can their weapons systems be functioning[/QUOTE] certain variants, yes.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696923][nerde]M72 LAW[/nerde][/QUOTE] oh shit you're right Either way it's not just some piece of metal pipe like Megafan is suggesting

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696914]Yes you are and yes there are but you can do it if you prove that you aren't a villain[/QUOTE] Okay, what does "prove you aren't a villain" even mean, and two, how is that not an infringement on your ability to bear arms?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696931]Pretty sure that's what I said. It's not an AT-4 either.[/QUOTE] You are right on that one. It's just a collapsable tube with writing on it, essentially.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39696937]oh shit you're right Either way it's not just some piece of metal pipe like Megafan is suggesting[/QUOTE] Right I know that, I mean functionally it's the shell of a rocket launcher with no capability of being fired again.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696908]Are you actually capable of going out and firing it? If I had to guess I would reckon there are some pretty strict regulations on that.[/QUOTE] well you can't do it in city limits, but you can't do that with small arms either other than that, fire away

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696945]Right I know that, I mean functionally it's the shell of a rocket launcher with no capability of being fired again.[/QUOTE] (Just clarifying for those observing who might not know) The M7A2 LAW, once fired, must be sent back to the armorer to be reloaded. 'Fire and Forget' essentially.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696939]Okay, what does "prove you aren't a villain" even mean, and two, how is that not an infringement on your ability to bear arms?[/QUOTE] What the hell kind of question is that

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696939]Okay, what does "prove you aren't a villain" even mean, and two, how is that not an infringement on your ability to bear arms?[/QUOTE] background check

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696945]Right I know that, I mean functionally it's the shell of a rocket launcher with no capability of being fired again.[/QUOTE] Technically I believe with enough effort it could be reloaded, but it's not considered to be easy enough to be viable.

if you know how to reload it it's not hard, but it's pretty specialist knowledge

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696897]I'm fairly certain that's a hollowed-out metal tube.[/QUOTE] Isn't a tube already hollow? If it were solid, it would be a rod.

[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] Turbonerds could figure out how to operate a Nimitz class carrier if they wanted to.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39696984]Isn't a tube already hollow? If it were solid, it would be a rod.[/QUOTE] Yes, I suppose it would be.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39696878]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] except we added the 21st amendment ~hundred years after the constitution was ratified only to remove it shortly after. Its lifespan is a testament to the Jefferson's "living document". You're partially right though, what I should have said in that sentence is "without repealing any of the original 10 amendments". I alluded to this in my last sentence by mentioning "225 years" and you answered the other one yourself, it's about interpretation. The boundaries of suffrage were left undefined by the constitution (perhaps intentionally so, this way the 1789 constitution would be ratified with less controversy, but still leave an opening for future revisions), and our republic saw fit to better define the right to vote through an amendment. [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] ok thats pretty much what I wrote. glad we agree?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39696225]Haha, that's hilarious. Nice try doing that here.[/QUOTE] Gosh dude I guess you're right! It's not already easy enough for people to kill eachother. We should make it even easier! Let's issue every household with a Kill-Tron 5000! The ultimate in killing efficiency! But of couse, that won't have any effect on death rates. I mean, how could better murdering tools reflect more successful murders? They're just for self defence! They're a right! We have the right to be able to take eachothers lives as easily and problem free as possible! I mean, it's not like restricting their access to these Kill-Trons would help neighbourhoods become better places. Obviously the way to make America as safe as possible is to make sure everyone is in tip-top murdering shape with the best murder-hardware necessary! I mean, what kind of world would it be if almost nobody owned one of these Kill-Trons? I say, how would people be able to defend themselves against others who also don't have a Kill-Tron? They could come at eachother with knives and rocks for gosh sake! How barbaric. I mean, it's not like restricting firearms sales would decrease the supply and demand! Meaning less guns were being manufactured, meaning less guns would be on the black market, meaning less guns even in the hands of criminals! That doesn't make any sense! I mean, it's not like most murders are done on a whim, because access to firearms is so readily available! Why would we want to make it harder and give people more time to reflect and cool down before they go on a murder spree with incredible ease and efficiency that we made available to them? That's just nonsense. What we should do is just give everyone as many guns as possible. Because that has proven to be very successful thus far. That'll solve our problems. - America.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;39697673]Gosh dude I guess you're right! It's not already easy enough for people to kill eachother. We should make it even easier! Let's issue every household with a Kill-Tron 5000! The ultimate in killing efficiency! But of couse, that won't have any effect on death rates. I mean, how could better murdering tools reflect more successful murders? They're just for self defence! They're a right! We have the right to be able to take eachothers lives as easily and problem free as possible! I mean, it's not like restricting their access to these Kill-Trons would help neighbourhoods become better places. Obviously the way to make America as safe as possible is to make sure everyone is in tip-top murdering shape with the best murder-hardware necessary! I mean, what kind of world would it be if almost nobody owned one of these Kill-Trons? I say, how would people be able to defend themselves against others who also don't have a Kill-Tron? They could come at eachother with knives and rocks for gosh sake! How barbaric. I mean, it's not like restricting firearms sales would decrease the supply and demand! Meaning less guns were being manufactured, meaning less guns would be on the black market, meaning less guns even in the hands of criminals! That doesn't make any sense! I mean, it's not like most murders are done on a whim, because access to firearms is so readily available! Why would we want to make it harder and give people more time to reflect and cool down before they go on a murder spree with incredible ease and efficiency that we made available to them? That's just nonsense. What we should do is just give everyone as many guns as possible. Because that has proven to be very successful thus far. That'll solve our problems. - America.[/QUOTE] Just because your country was idiotic enough to have a knee-jerk reaction to ban firearms instead of figuring out and solving the problems, doesn't mean that WE should have to.

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;39697688]Just because your country was idiotic enough to have a knee-jerk reaction to ban firearms instead of figuring out and solving the problems, doesn't mean that WE should have to.[/QUOTE] Yeah it was so idiotic to totally cripple fire arm deaths. That was really dumb of us! If only we had paid more attention to america, we could have more gun-related murders than ever!

[QUOTE=Rusty100;39697691]Yeah it was so idiotic to totally cripple fire arm deaths. That was really dumb of us! If only we had paid more attention to america, we could have more gun-related murders than ever![/QUOTE] But assault weapon deaths are a very small majority, what are you even talking about