Or maybe they're not.
Or maybe they're not.
Since there is no way Jack up there is going to go find something he must suspect makes him look foolish.
This would cover the main guns on a tank - from the ATF - definition of a restricted destructive device.
I'll see if I can find something official (other than all the unofficial sites saying you CAN'T own an operational battle tank.) since the first thing he's going to do is disbelieve.
A. It wasn't a real firing tank, but a cardboard cutout made to look like one.
B. it wasn't really owned by a civilian. The army has simply adopted casual Friday attire policy and jettisoned all fitness requirements.
C. It was illegally owned and no law enforcement agency has yet to observe a 39 ton operational tank tooling about town.
Thanks I'll stick with the law, you don't know what is going on in the video, you pulled it off the net - it's certainly not official "proof" of anything, if you really wanted to know the law, you'd have gone and looked that up - or maybe you did, and found out you were completely mistaken.
Well unless that's YOU you still can't have one.
How's that work for ya?
It's legal for the Army to have tanks also - oh wait, that's not you either.
You haven't proven anything relevant to what was being discussed. In fact you proved what we were saying. It is legal to regulate, restrict and limit.
It's completely legal for the private manufacturers of tanks to own them, unfortunately it's NOT legal for them to sell them to YOU!
LOL, what you proved was that you said something wrong then jumped through flaming hoops to try and justify it.
Sad, but true.
Anyway the Gov REGULATING who can buy a functioning tank explicitly means THEY ARE NOT LEGAL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
Which was your original contention wasn't it.
The US pays 22% of the 171 nation UN budget.... weird. I thought in other places you foreign folks were arguing how much better off life was in those other places... so why is the US paying 22% of the budget of the UN? We will take your 4% rate for the same ability to whine....
That was dated 2011 but reported in 2009 as well then in 2010:Quote:
No amount of this is how Clagary does it will convince any other American that we should change.... that and as long as it it relatively the same as the number of auto fatalities (32,000) then it is a necessity versus a problem...
jackoroe, you are trolling the thread instead of admitting you were wrong, which YOU proved through your own posts. It's completely unacceptable behavior from a moderator, and empty as the gesture is, you've been reported.
- - - Updated - - -
Oooooh k, one by one by one by one:
2. You have already transferred that task to the government. The contract you have with your government states that you can't be gunned down for no reason, you have to be proven guilty of a crime to be imprisoned or executed, and any unwarranted attack against you is persecuted and punished by the government. To claim that you should have a bodyguard is to claim you live in a crime state where laws are not respected. And if that's the problem, then owning a gun does not resolve it. Is that what you are saying?
3. Because if you should have sole ownership of yourself and your action, ANY law that tells you what to do - which is EVERY law - is against that ideal. Government tells you a LOT of things, and it SHOULD, or society would not exist, it would be "might makes right" (which IS the libertarian principle, but you usually claim otherwise as to your personal ideology).
II. I'm sorry, my mistake, it was rareboy in the Norquist topic:
B. I would like some sources for that claim, please.
- - - Updated - - -
b. I will LOVE to see statistics showing that MOST women who own a gun have gone to classes on how to use it in extreme situations. I'm sorry, this is getting really absurd. They might be more "likely" to take tactical training, but a claim as silly as the one that tens of millions of women have gone through gun training just really needs proof.
c. Oh, researchers cherry picked the data? Sure. And pollsters oversampled Democrats. And the media has liberal bias. And Obama wants to abort white Americans out of existence.
d. And you don't see a problem with the actual environment that allowed this crime? You think that violent crimes are a constant that cannot be changed, so it's better if we add more violence so that we somehow magically end up with LESS violence?
e. There is no way to prove that. And you ignored my long post from the previous page which addressed exactly the fact that MOST criminals lack both the motivation, experience and organization to actually "craft" guns. As easy as it might be, most people are not good at arts and crafts, and most criminals are not On A Mission And Willing To Do What It Takes. Take away their guns and they will use knives and bats. Which - still scary, but far less lethal than a projectile weapon.
f. I'm bolding that because it's outrageous and I want everyone to see it in my giant post. So you claim that the citizens of the UK are slaves? That one of the happiest, strongest and most successful countries in the world is populated by slaves? Not to mention the rest of the no-guns countries in Europe. Fuck, Kuli, if that is our definition of slavery, maybe we should reconsider freedom, no?
g. No, I only claim that vastly larger number of people PER CAPITA are murdered by guns each year in the States than in anywhere else in the First World, and that every time this has been pointed out to you, you have completely and utterly failed to give any credible reason as to why that is not related to, yunno, freely available guns.
h. Lunatic and unrealistic wishful thinking, and there is no example in the history of mankind that can be used to defend it.
i. Cops are government hired and trained PROFESSIONALS who follow strict regulations and whose sole job is to prevent crime or deal with it when it occurs. Their profession demands the means to defend themselves from aggression and fight it, because their profession actively puts them in harm's way. There are very few words in the preceding sentences that can be used in the same order to describe you or any other private citizen.
You are talking of some higher morality. I am not. I am talking of reality. Your ONLY rights stem from the understanding between you, your government and the other governments your government deals with. This isn't about right, wrong, moral or immoral. We all have those concepts, and for many of us they are similar, so we live in similar societies, or the same one. However, there are other countries with other morals, other laws and other governments. In those countries you do NOT have the rights you have here, and no claim to higher intrinsic Creator given rights will give them to you. Self-ownership is cute and cuddly, but it only exists in a state that allows it to you. Go to Uganda and make out with a dude, and them tell me it is your Creator given right to express your feelings publicly. It will not end well. So yes, while it is an incredibly important achievement that we have reached a point in western culture where we believe certain rights and freedoms should not be denied, we have our governments to ENFORCE that belief on everyone within our borders. We use despotic means to achieve higher morality. That's the way it works, because petty, aggressive and self-serving people will always do what they do if given the power to do it.
Well, gun owners are as one-track as tea partiers. Context is irrelevant, as long as superficial facts look good enough to be used as an argument.
If this is about the inherent right to life, I am entitled by way of right to have the government regulate any instance of the manufacture, acquisition, transport, storage, or operation of a firearm in equal measure to the degree of risk posed to my life by that firearm.
You may argue that the risk is close to zero. You may argue that I have the burden of demonstrating that risk. But if the right to life is inalienable such that a constitution can merely recognise that right, rather than grant it, then the right is mine to enforce.
With that in mind, and in support of the right to my own life, I expect to be able to compel, through government force, that gun owners be able:
To demonstrate proficiency in the use of the weapon so I am not shot by accident
To pass a basic mental health screening so I am not shot through delusion or psychotic rage
To demonstrate a secure storage device such that the weapon remains at all times in the control of a responsible owner
To obtain the weapon from a secure facility or a documented provenance.
To make available on production of a warrant (or in connection with some standard of just cause and due process) an accurate and verifiable identifying record of the weapon should it be lost or stolen, to facilitate police recovery and investigation of the use of a stolen weapon in any subsequent crime.
Other than that, if people want to go to the hunting club or the shooting range have fun.
Now maybe instead of pissing and whining about "trolling" some of our members should pull their heads out of their asses and maybe learn something. I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, by any stretch. But there are certain things I am qualified to speak on with some authority. Gun laws are one of them. I've contributed to writing and lobbying for some of what's on the books now. If you've got a more impressive credential, let's hear about it.
Debate the merits of gun laws as you see fit. That's grist for the mill. Challenging somebody who actually has read and contributed to existing gun laws and understands the rights of the people as it relates to gun laws, is a fool's errand.
Sorry, that's not how the topic progressed. It was stated that guns should not be restricted in any way, period. You agreed with that. Then it turned out some of them are. You disagreed and put up videos that proved that they WERE restricted. Nobody argues that it is POSSIBLE to own a tank. Except, this possibility is reserved for a very limited number of people and it is difficult to be a part of that group. So I don't know what argument you think you're having, but the one you came into and became part of was the one I described. And so yes, you were wrong. And though you might not be the brightest bulb on the tree, you are bright enough by far to know that.
Now be a decent guy, and start a sentence with "yes, that's true, if the argument is about whether anyone could have unrestricted access to any weapon, then no, they can't, HOWEVER..." and proceed from there.
If you thought the whole argument was "can someone own a de-weaponized tank" you were unaware what was being discussed.
Phoenix Pop: 1.5 million... murders total 117
So three times the murder rate with twice the pop? I know there are a host of issues as to why but facts are facts...
A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.
But there really isn't a major point in having the discussion.....in the end you believe they should be controlled more so and I believe they should be free and easy to acquire. Each of us can trot out statistics till our fingers bleed and neither of us will change our opinion.Quote:
This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise.
If there was any validity to the casual argument you're making then we should be seeing megadeath in all the non-U.S. countries with stringent gun control, and we aren't. So the argument that gun control = violent crime goes up is bunk.
Because. There is. No. Single. Factor. That. Defines. Crime. Rate.
There are factors that influence it. And freely obtainable guns are obviously one of these factors.
Well obviously because when you make guns freely attainable the murder rate drops.... I love this graphic....
Hold the phone...
^ That's current day. I'd have a hard time believing that Obama would be coming after those. :lol:
I wouldn't even know where to go, or how to get a "permit" for one of those. But I want one. ;)
Again, I'm not making an argument for banning. I took exception to a massively broad claim that no treaty or law signed by the U.S. would ever have the right to even limit private gun ownership, and that simply isn't reality.
Take a look at the perpetrators of crime. They are disproportionately minorities. That isn't racist, it's just a fact. Look at who the victims are, and they're by and large minorities as well. So, if we remove minority crime from our overall crime rate, we actually compare favorably to the rest of the world.
Let me be very clear about this. I hate seeing anybody die needlessly. I don't care what your race or creed. We are all God's children equal in his eyes. But we can't ignore the elephant in the room anymore. Kids are dying that shouldn't be. How do we stop it? And please be serious in your response. Let's see if we can discuss this like grown ups. Thanks.
The more accurate interpretation would include more information omitted in what you just posted: that America has an entrenched, long standing correlation between members of traditionally discriminated against races and poverty (Native Americans are actually more poverty stricken than blacks btw, just no one talks about it because they're few in number and out of sight) and America has literally feudal levels of wealth distribution/income inequality.
In other words, the more you cram people together who have no hope no job and make 1/20th what the guy 2 blocks away does, the more a lot of nasty stuff goes up-- drugs, robbery, etc. Know what else Canada, Japan and most of western Europe have in common besides gun control? Fantastically more equal distribution of wealth.
The U.S. doesn't have a "race" problem when it comes to crime. The U.S. has a massive disparity of wealth and opportunity problem which overlaps race, and which breeds crime. When the people who were in the shoes of Mexicans or blacks today were Italian or Irish guess what they were known for? Oh yes. Crime.
The "knuckle draggers" in this Country would argue that we need more to protect ourselves from Obama, et. al. , while there's never been any real evidence that they should, or that it's required.
I never really thought much about arming myself until the "knuckle draggers" like Palin, and the Tea Baggers came along. ;)
- - - Updated - - -
The Twenty-First Amendment. ;)
You cite discrimination and "lack of opportunity" whatever that means. Quantify both for us, please.
Super duper long story short, I didn't want to be in a gun control debate at all but Kul made a really really broad Ayn Rand sounding claim about how no law or treaty ever passed that in any way restricted private firearm ownership would be legal/moral/Constitutional, and then started talking about self-ownership and the right to self defense and all this other stuff. And I was sitting there scratching my head going "huh what? But we do have regulations on buying guns, selling guns, wait periods on guns, what types of bullets, what types of automatics and semiautomatics, moving guns, transporting guns, carrying guns in public, military hardware, etc."
And then that spawned a page long tangent about "nuh uh yes you can too buy a tank (with no weapons)" which had nothing to do with my core point which was: saying that no law or treaty that in any way touches upon free and unfettered and unrestricted private gun ownership in any way would be legal/Constitutional" is a claim based on a false premise, since we already regulate/restrict/limit/put conditions on weapon ownership, and it's perfectly legal.
Was it because everybody was broke and there was nothing to steal?