Author Topic: Girly Man?  (Read 2039 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Girly Man?
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2004, 07:31:43 PM »
draw the line?  I don't draw the line except for explosives that may endager firefighters, neighbors or rescue workers... this includes chemical weapons.    I have no problem with city and local ordinances that limit firing of guns in city limits without just cause or proper facility.

lazs

Offline Terror

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
      • http://walden.mo.net/~aedwards
Girly Man?
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2004, 08:03:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Where do you draw the line then? Nuclear?


The laws should be there to protect the individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.  I seen no reason restrict weapons unless the responsible use or storage of that weapon infringes on another individuals rights.  High Explosives, Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be used or stored without extreme precaution to insure the safety of the general population.  Where responsible use/storage of general weapons incur no more danger to the general population.

Oh BTW, Howitzer (or any other cannon or fully automatic weapon manufactured before 1986) ownership is currently Federally legal following licensing regulation through the ATF.  So your neighbor COULD pull out that Howitzer and park it in his front yard tomorrow.

I know this is niave, too many "bad apples" in our society.  I can live with background checks for all dealer weapon purchases.  I can live with licensing for fully automatic small arms and cannons.  (As long as cost is not prohibitive as it currently is for licensing.)  But I do not agree with general banning of weapons to the general law-abiding populace.  I also do not agree with a general "registry of gun owners".  I should be able to own  firearms without anyone keeping track of what/when/where firearms I own.

Terror

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Girly Man?
« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2004, 08:21:47 PM »
well put terror.

lazs

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
Girly Man?
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2004, 08:36:19 PM »
"I seen no reason restrict weapons unless the responsible use or storage of that weapon infringes on another individuals rights. "

Which is exactly why I support the banning of anything bigger than rifle caliber.

My neighbor does not need a howitzer or a 50 cal rifle to defend his home, nor to hunt nor hand grenades for any other reason than to have it as a 'toy'.

If my neighbor parked a howitzer in his yard I would feel quite threatened by someone who I dont know showing that he owns something that can blow my house up in one shot, that I dont know if he keeps the ammo for that thing on his garage, how responsible he is in keeping said ammo there (his house blows and mine too), or how responsible his little kids are (kids shoot themselves with regular 9mm imagine what would happen if Jr found a grenade in the closet and pulled the pin..with the howitzer ammo being in the closet too, etc etc).

There is no way whatsoever to guarantee someone will be 'responsible' with such firepower. A gun,  a rifle, even a machine gun if you will is something that even an irresponsible person cannot cause massive damage and loss of life. Someone with a mortar, a howitzer, a pack of grenades, a 50 cal rifle (it can pierce his house's walls, my house's walls and the walls of the 2 houses next to mine), etc etc can.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Girly Man?
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2004, 10:20:38 PM »
"There is no way whatsoever to guarantee someone will be 'responsible' "


Will you feel any better if your family is killed by a drunk driver?  

Guess which is more likely.


What do you drive?




J_A_B

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Girly Man?
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2004, 10:22:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by OIO


Which is exactly why I support the banning of anything bigger than rifle caliber.

My neighbor does not need a howitzer or a 50 cal rifle to defend his home, nor to hunt nor hand grenades for any other reason than to have it as a 'toy'.

If my neighbor parked a howitzer in his yard I would feel quite threatened by someone who I dont know showing that he owns something that can blow my house up in one shot, that I dont know if he keeps the ammo for that thing on his garage, how responsible he is in keeping said ammo there (his house blows and mine too), or how responsible his little kids are (kids shoot themselves with regular 9mm imagine what would happen if Jr found a grenade in the closet and pulled the pin..with the howitzer ammo being in the closet too, etc etc).

There is no way whatsoever to guarantee someone will be 'responsible' with such firepower. A gun,  a rifle, even a machine gun if you will is something that even an irresponsible person cannot cause massive damage and loss of life. Someone with a mortar, a howitzer, a pack of grenades, a 50 cal rifle (it can pierce his house's walls, my house's walls and the walls of the 2 houses next to mine), etc etc can.


and thats why you just don't get it.

it's about not infringing on his right to own and use his weapons as long as his ownership doesn't present a safety hazzard for the general population.

it's not about what weapons you think "he needs to own".

btw- very well said terror.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Girly Man?
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2004, 10:34:34 PM »
OIO how do you go from rifle caliber to howitzer?

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13244
Girly Man?
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2004, 10:43:54 PM »
Lines are drawn and will continue to be drawn and redrawn. The average citizen cannot own a fully automatic rifle. Why not?

Let's get technical about the 2nd Amendment, it's says right to bear arms, not rifles or pistols. Nukes are arms and the US has them in it's military arsenal, why can't a private citizen?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Girly Man?
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2004, 08:45:20 AM »
oio... owning a fifty does not mean that the person would use it to shoot in the house.   that would be neglignent... but... a thirty ougtht six hunting rifle or any gun you think is "ok" could overpenetrate too.   A car going down the street could veer into your bedroom and kill you... happens more than you think.

iron... explosives have the ability to destroy without control of the owner.   they also can't normally be used in a selective manner.   They shells for a howitzer endager people in an explosive manner.   Most contain more black powder than is allowed to be stored by an individual.

lazs

Offline Terror

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
      • http://walden.mo.net/~aedwards
Girly Man?
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2004, 09:59:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Lines are drawn and will continue to be drawn and redrawn. The average citizen cannot own a fully automatic rifle. Why not?

Let's get technical about the 2nd Amendment, it's says right to bear arms, not rifles or pistols. Nukes are arms and the US has them in it's military arsenal, why can't a private citizen?


Ah, but the average law-abiding citizen can currently be licensed to own/use a fully automatic rifle.  It's just very cost prohibitive.

Weapons of Mass Destruction:  Nukes, Chemical, Biological, High-Explosives, should be controlled due to the instability and nature of their destructiveness.  Even exceptionally trained personnel have difficulty handling and using weapons of this type.  

A Howitzer and its ammunition can be handled safely and responsibly by individuals with very little training.  And under the current licensing, ammunition must be stored in special magazines that are specially built to withstand emergencies.  This is licensing I am ok with.  (Exept for the exhorbitant (sp?) pricing.)  Though the Howitzer itself can be stored in any manner that the individual deems appropriate.  (except in the few states that have "storage" laws.)

The problem I have is with laws that ban a firearm because it "might" be used irresponsibly (Like the .50cal BMG).  The laws should punish and restrict individuals that have shown they cannot handle weapons responsibly.

Terror

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Girly Man?
« Reply #55 on: September 16, 2004, 10:08:33 AM »
terror said it better than I did.  

hunting rifles will overpenetrate.  hunters who have nothing else will use the hunting rifle to protect themselves in an emmergency... we all acept this risk..

if, said hunting rifle round overpenetrates and kills an innocent ... at that time, it will be up to the shooter to prove that he was not acting negligently...  a fifty is no different except.... it is so unweildy that it is unlikely in the extreme that it would be useful for self defense.

The reasons given for the ban were that the fifty penetrated armor.   armor plated limos... It is not citizens that the government is trying to protect here.

lazs

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13244
Girly Man?
« Reply #56 on: September 16, 2004, 10:37:14 AM »
You guys win, guess living in Kalifornia has turned Arnold into a girly-man, get out while ya can lazs. ;)
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline -MZ-

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Girly Man?
« Reply #57 on: September 16, 2004, 12:27:28 PM »
You're a nut if you think the 2nd Amendment is there to give you the capability to commit terrorism against the government.

Offline ASTAC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1654
Girly Man?
« Reply #58 on: September 16, 2004, 12:37:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Blooz
Unconstitutional.

I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.

You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.

California gun owners. Stand up!

Your state law cannot violate Federal law!


California seems not to want to be part of the Union....let em go.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety

Offline -MZ-

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Girly Man?
« Reply #59 on: September 16, 2004, 01:01:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ASTAC
California seems not to want to be part of the Union....let em go.


I wish, then we could get your little state off our welfare rolls.