Free Gay Sex Photos, Movies, Reviews and Forums at JustUsBoys
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 258
  1. #51
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    My life is mine. That by itself is enough to authorize my choice of arms and carrying. By the "only cops should have guns" theory, I'd almost certainly be dead. Any system that tells me I have to just hand my life to a criminal who drops in is vile and immoral.
    This reasoning is really paranoid. No one in my entire extended family owns guns. None of us are dead.

  2. #52
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    Wrong. The Bill of Rights recognizes our inherent rights given us by our creator and enjoins the government from screwing with them. The Heller case decided by SCOTUS, acknowledged that to be the case. I have a right, as an individual, to keep and bear arms. And who gives a rat's ass what Europe thinks about anything?
    Intelligent people who put morality above dumb blind nationalism?

    Your constitution says you should be able to have arms to form militias. Not to have arms just cause you feel like it in peaceful times. Your constitution was also written in a completely different time, when EMPIRES ruled the world, and globalization had barely started. As Kuli (ironically) said in a neighbor topic, Constitutional literalism is just as dangerous as Biblical.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  3. #53
    The Mother of Loki Laufey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    1,749


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    If you don't mind 30.000 people dying every year from your gun culture then by all means stick to it.

  4. #54
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    By your reasoning, we should license people's tongues.
    In a sense we do. Is someone "owning" me by the fact that I'm not allowed to yell fire in a theater? What if fire means "great movie" in my native language? Aren't my rights being taken away?

    And what the Framers meant was the every citizen should be able to have and to carry around the latest in personal military hardware.
    I disagree. I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that the actual thought in the minds of the framers when they wrote this bill was a military grade British cannon on every farm. I have almost no reason to think they meant anything other than what they actually said-- in order to establish a well trained militia, which would be there to prevent tyranny from a central government. Kinda like how the Governors are able to not order their state national guard or reserves into situations they don't want to even if the Federal government asks them to. I see that as a better exercise of what was actually meant rather than "every citizen having military grade weaponry at home."

    Over two million people annually in the US protect themselves and/or others against crime. That's a pretty widespread phenomenon -- and all gun restrictions do is reduce the ability of those people to defend themselves.
    That's fantastically one sided use of evidence when there's more than a boatload of stats and figures about how many deaths and crimes are enabled by easy access to firearms. Many states don't even have sensible restrictions on walk-in gun purchasing from people who are severely mentally disturbed-- see Virginia Tech. Is this really the picture you believe the framers had in mind?

  5. #55
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    But you do see how you contradict yourself, right? (I know you don't, but here it comes

    If self-ownership means you should be allowed to use any means you deem fit to defend yourself, then why stop at a handgun? Why not a tank? And if you should be allowed to bear arms to defend yourself - instead of electing people whose JOB it would be to defend you - why not translate that principle to government? Government should be made illegal, you should be the only person with the right to govern you, no?
    This argument has been made before. You can certainly own a tank, should you so desire. That minor detail aside, there's the issue of the amount of discrimination inherent in a weapon system. For example, if I want to shoot you, a handgun or rifle works well enough. A hand grenade doesn't discriminate sufficiently to ensure that only you are stopped and not the group standing in your vicinity. Same goes for bombs.

  6. #56
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    This argument has been made before. You can certainly own a tank, should you so desire. That minor detail aside, there's the issue of the amount of discrimination inherent in a weapon system. For example, if I want to shoot you, a handgun or rifle works well enough. A hand grenade doesn't discriminate sufficiently to ensure that only you are stopped and not the group standing in your vicinity. Same goes for bombs.
    How about an F16 or a nuke.

  7. #57
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    By your reasoning, we should license people's tongues.

    And what the Framers meant was the every citizen should be able to have and to carry around the latest in personal military hardware.

    There's a reason that gals I know who've been raped call gun-control advocates "pro rape": telling them they can't have the gun of their choice to protect themselves you're telling them they have to submit to the rapist.

    Over two million people annually in the US protect themselves and/or others against crime. That's a pretty widespread phenomenon -- and all gun restrictions do is reduce the ability of those people to defend themselves.
    This is incredibly disingenuous for many reasons. I would say intentionally biased, except, I know you honestly believe it.

    1. The framers had no idea we would have weapons capable of obliterating NATIONS at the touch of a button. Had they known that, they would not have put it in the constitution and I'll laugh in your face if you claim otherwise.

    2. I am fairly confident that the chance of a woman protecting herself from rape through having a gun is far lower than the chance of her freezing from fear and the rapist taking control of the weapon. This is how MOST gun deaths happen by the way, and statistics that have been shown in this forum over and over again are ALWAYS clearly pointed at it.

    3. And how many of those people wouldn't NEED to protect themselves if guns weren't available like candy? You can speak all you want about how criminals can make guns from pencils and pizza boxes, but the reality is that most people lack both the skill and the motivation to do it.

    Some thoughts to arguments you've used here and in previous topics on the same subject:
    - Petty criminals aren't an organized unit with a mission and the mindset to do anything it needs to achieve it. They are just getting by in a dishonest way, and without free access to guns they would not have them and most would not have the means to acquire them. Anything beyond that pay grade is NOT the business of private citizens but police force and army.
    - There is the absolutely undeniable fact that gun deaths in the US are about as large a percentage compared to anywhere else in the First World, as the difference between US military and the rest of it. Which is - disproportionately large. You can spin THEORIES and talk of PRINCIPLES and describe HYPOTHETICAL situations, but that statistic is COLD HARD FACT. Gun ownership has made more people dead than safe.
    - You've talked about bad neighborhoods and how guns are necessary to be safe there, but that is false. A criminal is ALWAYS more willing than you to pull the trigger, and treating bad neighborhoods with guns is making them more volatile and unsafe instead of the opposite. Violence - or the threat of it - solves that problem as much as punishing bullies in schools resolves the issue of bullying at schools...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  8. #58
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Intelligent people who put morality above dumb blind nationalism?

    Your constitution says you should be able to have arms to form militias. Not to have arms just cause you feel like it in peaceful times. Your constitution was also written in a completely different time, when EMPIRES ruled the world, and globalization had barely started. As Kuli (ironically) said in a neighbor topic, Constitutional literalism is just as dangerous as Biblical.
    Wrong again. The Constitution doesn't give me any rights. I have them by virtue of my very existence. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the ability of the government to usurp my liberty.

  9. #59
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    How about an F16 or a nuke.
    There are privately owned f16's. Nukes, being bombs, were addressed in my previous post.

  10. #60
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    Wrong again. The Constitution doesn't give me any rights. I have them by virtue of my very existence. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the ability of the government to usurp my liberty.
    This is populism. You have ONLY the rights your country gives you. We can spin all we want about virtue of existence crap, but if that were an objective truth, all countries in the world would be in the same place. They aren't. Your rights ARE given by the constitution, and the government's interpretation of it, and if you leave here and go live in Iran, your rights will change and be limited. You will also be stoned to death.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  11. #61
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    There are privately owned f16's. Nukes, being bombs, were addressed in my previous post.
    Not convincingly though. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that you can only own weapons that can be precisely directed at one person. Bombs didn't exist at the time the framers were writing.
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  12. #62
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    There are privately owned f16's. Nukes, being bombs, were addressed in my previous post.
    I'm 100% certain the reason you are not allowed to own or make a nuke has absolutely nothing to do with "well there isn't an efficient way you could use it to stop a criminal and not hurt others."

    You guys are arguing everything from the corner of "how it can be used to protect yourself from crime" when that is not the legal basis for whether any weapon is something you are allowed to own and handle and carry around or not. The entire fixation with weapons being there to protect yourself from crime is an entirely invented argument by gun owners and isn't even mentioned in the constitution, which talked about militias. Pretty sure 1770's North America didnt have a heavy gun-armed urban home invasion problem.

  13. #63
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Location
    Kerrville
    Posts
    10,990


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No, my reasoning becomes very clear, because this is an issue which lies very close to first principles -- unlike economics, which gets rather muddy because of the complexity.

    It's very simple: I own myself. You own yourself. Rights proceed from there; among them are life, liberty, and the purfuit of happinefs.* Since I own myself, I have the right to protect myself; that is a guarantor of my life, of my liberty, and of my ability to pursue happiness. No one can tell me what means I may choose; to do so means they have ownership over me.

    That half of Europe prefers to enjoy a mere illusion of liberty without essential substance is irrelevant.

    My life is mine. That by itself is enough to authorize my choice of arms and carrying. By the "only cops should have guns" theory, I'd almost certainly be dead. Any system that tells me I have to just hand my life to a criminal who drops in is vile and immoral.






    *spelling from an early printing of the Declaration



    p.s. -- whoever deleted your post, if it said only what you say above, is a busybody dweeb
    I was wondering if you were channeling Thomas Jefferson.

    But, you know how I feel about guns. I posted this thread to let the difcuffion occur about the fear mongering and y'all are doing juft fine.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  14. #64
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    This reasoning is really paranoid. No one in my entire extended family owns guns. None of us are dead.
    You have no dead relatives? Congratulations!

  15. #65
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    You have no dead relatives? Congratulations!
    Thank you. You never know though, maybe my grandfather who died of a stroke before I was born would have lived if he could have shot the stroke first with his uzi.

  16. #66
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Posts
    9,673


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    You have no dead relatives? Congratulations!
    You know saying this instantly makes everyone think you have nothing else to say, right?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  17. #67
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Not convincingly though. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that you can only own weapons that can be precisely directed at one person. Bombs didn't exist at the time the framers were writing.
    You're batting 1000 today. Exploding shells (bombs) go back to about 1400 AD. Cannon and Mortars go back even further. So, they were in existence in 1776. Could you own one? Sure, you can still own a cannon or mortar without too much difficulty. Bombs and explosive devices aren't currently considered as arms, but destructive devices predicated on their inability to discriminate. You can own exploding shells but each shell has a $200 tax on it. Gets expensive pretty quick.

  18. #68
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    But you do see how you contradict yourself, right? (I know you don't, but here it comes

    If self-ownership means you should be allowed to use any means you deem fit to defend yourself, then why stop at a handgun? Why not a tank? And if you should be allowed to bear arms to defend yourself - instead of electing people whose JOB it would be to defend you - why not translate that principle to government? Government should be made illegal, you should be the only person with the right to govern you, no?
    If you can put a tank in a holster and carry it with you, I'll concede it as a personal means of defense.

    The only way to transfer the task of protecting me to government would be if government assigned a bodyguard to each of us, so half the population would be bodyguards. But even then it would remain my duty to protect myself, because a bodyguard is no guarantee.

    Why should government be made illegal????

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  19. #69
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    You know saying this instantly makes everyone think you have nothing else to say, right?

    Ditto.....

  20. #70
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    If you can put a tank in a holster and carry it with you, I'll concede it as a personal means of defense.

    The only way to transfer the task of protecting me to government would be if government assigned a bodyguard to each of us, so half the population would be bodyguards. But even then it would remain my duty to protect myself, because a bodyguard is no guarantee.

    Why should government be made illegal????
    Personal means of defense =/= the constitution's blessing on having arms or which you can have.

  21. #71
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    This reasoning is really paranoid. No one in my entire extended family owns guns. None of us are dead.
    It's only paranoid if there aren't any violent criminals in the world.

    It's good that you've been in the safe portion of the statistical spectrum. But extending that luck to cover everyone by denying them arms is to condemn thousands of people every year to death. Much better to extend my part of the spectrum, so those people can, as I did, protect themselves.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  22. #72
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    It's only paranoid if there aren't any violent criminals in the world.

    It's good that you've been in the safe portion of the statistical spectrum. But extending that luck to cover everyone by denying them arms is to condemn thousands of people every year to death. Much better to extend my part of the spectrum, so those people can, as I did, protect themselves.
    Or watch the death rate go up even higher as people are free carrying arms everywhere everytime they get angry, upset or into a heated bar argument?

  23. #73
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Intelligent people who put morality above dumb blind nationalism?

    Your constitution says you should be able to have arms to form militias. Not to have arms just cause you feel like it in peaceful times. Your constitution was also written in a completely different time, when EMPIRES ruled the world, and globalization had barely started. As Kuli (ironically) said in a neighbor topic, Constitutional literalism is just as dangerous as Biblical.
    1. The constitution lists having a militia as one reason for having arms; it does not to limit it to that.

    2. According to law, every American male between sixteen and sixty is already a member of the militia. As such, every such individual actually has a duty to obtain effective arms, to practice with them, and to have them available for the defense of the community.

    3. Empires still rule most of the world; we've just changed the names to protect the guilty.

    4. I don't know who said that, but it wasn't me.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  24. #74
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Geiri85 View Post
    If you don't mind 30.000 people dying every year from your gun culture then by all means stick to it.
    It has nothing to do with a "gun culture". The biggest result of gun ownership in the US is responsible, law-abiding citizens. Gun owners have a substantially lower crime rate per capita than do non-owners. Take out the ones who have not acquired their guns legally, and it's a sharp divide.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  25. #75
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Posts
    18,225


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Kulindahr are you sure that is an "f" and not an "ſ"? The form of the lower-case s has changed over the years.

  26. #76
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    It has nothing to do with a "gun culture". The biggest result of gun ownership in the US is responsible, law-abiding citizens. Gun owners have a substantially lower crime rate per capita than do non-owners. Take out the ones who have not acquired their guns legally, and it's a sharp divide.
    This is romancing the truth. Easy, lightly or non restricted possession of firearms allows BOTH TYPES to get them. Pointing out that law abiding responsible people who own guns don't contribute to the murder rate simply skirts the fact that that person got their gun from the same Wal*Mart or walk-in store as the guy going through a nasty divorce and custody battle.

  27. #77
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    If you can put a tank in a holster and carry it with you, I'll concede it as a personal means of defense.

    The only way to transfer the task of protecting me to government would be if government assigned a bodyguard to each of us, so half the population would be bodyguards. But even then it would remain my duty to protect myself, because a bodyguard is no guarantee.

    Why should government be made illegal????
    Oh come on Kuli of course the Gov protects you, that's what the police and the army and the fire dep, and the FDA etc. do. You're taking that argument to extremes.

    And yes you can own a tank BUT ONLY if the weapons have been removed, making it essentially a tank shaped vehicle. Same is true for planes and helicopters and I would assume warships. Don't know about bombs, but I suspect that you can't own live ordinance, and a cursory search of the net supports that.

    So NO you can't own tanks fighters, live ordinance, or a bunch of other things people in here apparently think you can own.

    So YES the Gov DOES constitutionally prohibit the kinds of firearms you can posses already.

    As if that wasn't patently obvious.

    That argument about "discretion," is ludicrous on it's face. To make that work every idiot gunning down a black kid over skittles and juice would have be able to guarantee he would never miss - and since the suburban commando who's substituting gunpowder for manhood, and thinks Rambo wasn't an adolescent fantasy is usually a crappy shot that would never work.

    All you pro-gun people know this guy, you just don't want to own him, and I'm absolutely sure that the FF weren't thinking of him.

    There is no consensus on what the FF wanted - no there isn't Kuli, you just have your opinion on it, there are plenty of others.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  28. #78
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    In a sense we do. Is someone "owning" me by the fact that I'm not allowed to yell fire in a theater? What if fire means "great movie" in my native language? Aren't my rights being taken away?
    The second language idea makes for an interesting issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    I disagree. I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that the actual thought in the minds of the framers when they wrote this bill was a military grade British cannon on every farm. I have almost no reason to think they meant anything other than what they actually said-- in order to establish a well trained militia, which would be there to prevent tyranny from a central government. Kinda like how the Governors are able to not order their state national guard or reserves into situations they don't want to even if the Federal government asks them to. I see that as a better exercise of what was actually meant rather than "every citizen having military grade weaponry at home."
    All you have to do is read the debates over the Second Amendment. Hunting never got mentioned, self-defense not often, invasion frequently, but the overarching concern was that the citizens be sufficiently armed to overpower their government should it turn tyrannical.

    They didn't say "in order to establish a well trained militia". From the grammar of the statement, they said, "A well trained militia is necessary for a free country, and that's a good reason for protecting the inherent, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms".

    Nor did they say anything about a "cannon on every farm". Cannon are not private arms; everyone back then knew that because cannon are group/crew weapons, they were the province of an organized militia, not of individuals. That's why there are cannon on so many courthouse lawns: those were the pieces the town militias owned as a group.

    BTW, the phrase "to bear arms" at the "high" end meant to carry weapons suitable for engaging in an actual war. That's why Washington spoke of one militia unit as hardly being able to be spoken of as bearing arms, because their weapons were so poor.

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    That's fantastically one sided use of evidence when there's more than a boatload of stats and figures about how many deaths and crimes are enabled by easy access to firearms. Many states don't even have sensible restrictions on walk-in gun purchasing from people who are severely mentally disturbed-- see Virginia Tech. Is this really the picture you believe the framers had in mind?
    Virginia Tech occurred because of RESTRICTIONS on the right to keep and bear arms. If we had what the founders envisioned -- "that every man be armed" -- it wouldn't have been a massacre.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  29. #79
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    This argument has been made before. You can certainly own a tank, should you so desire. That minor detail aside, there's the issue of the amount of discrimination inherent in a weapon system. For example, if I want to shoot you, a handgun or rifle works well enough. A hand grenade doesn't discriminate sufficiently to ensure that only you are stopped and not the group standing in your vicinity. Same goes for bombs.
    That's a good point. While people with the proper license can own assault rifles, they're not going to use them for self-defense for the simple reason that if they hit the bad guy but killed a bystander, they'd be good on the first but be up for murder for the second (or negligent homocide at the least).

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  30. #80
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    No you CAN'T own a tank. You can own a tank shaped vehicle.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  31. #81
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Find me a legal basis for ownership criteria based on "discrimination."


    I DARE YOU!
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  32. #82
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    #78 and #79 said it very well.

    Kul at this point I think we're arguing over your belief and opinion as to what was intended and what the appropriate place of law/gov't is in restricting these things--- not the actual reality. In the actual reality, as it's already been pointed out, you can't own military grade hardware with live weapon systems intact, you can't make nuclear bombs, you can't fly an F16 around with live ordinance, you can't put anti personnel landmines around your house, you can't buy 10,000 tons of chemical fertilizer and not have the FBI show up to ask what you are buying it for. There are restrictions on personal firearms, those restrictions are there for exactly the same reasoning (as #78 pointed out) that your freedom of speech is curtailed in a crowded theater. Every argument I've yet seen as to why none of those restrictions should exist basically comes down to "if you can use it for personal defense there should be utterly no restriction on it" which is your opinion-- not the law, nor a proviso express in the Constitution, nor reflected in state or regional laws limiting gun ownership or regulating gun ownership.

    I'm not here to convince you that your belief as to "how it should be" is wrong... but I am talking about the reality, and in the reality, we do regulate gun ownership so dismissing out of hand something like "no no treaty like that can ever happen because it's unconstitutional to restrict my right in that arena in ANY WAY" is a position based off a false premise.

  33. #83
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    This is incredibly disingenuous for many reasons. I would say intentionally biased, except, I know you honestly believe it.

    1. The framers had no idea we would have weapons capable of obliterating NATIONS at the touch of a button. Had they known that, they would not have put it in the constitution and I'll laugh in your face if you claim otherwise.
    Laugh away -- you're wrong: "Give me liberty or give me death". They would have preferred a people to go down fighting than to submit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    2. I am fairly confident that the chance of a woman protecting herself from rape through having a gun is far lower than the chance of her freezing from fear and the rapist taking control of the weapon. This is how MOST gun deaths happen by the way, and statistics that have been shown in this forum over and over again are ALWAYS clearly pointed at it.
    The statistics show you wrong: most women who carry a gun for protection have gone through the same classes everyone else does on dealing with such situations; in fact women are more likely to take tactical training with simulated encounters than men are.

    And no, that is NOT "how most gun deaths happen"; that myth has been smashed every time it was brought up. To get that figure the "researchers" cherry picked their data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    3. And how many of those people wouldn't NEED to protect themselves if guns weren't available like candy? You can speak all you want about how criminals can make guns from pencils and pizza boxes, but the reality is that most people lack both the skill and the motivation to do it.
    Most self-protection using guns is not against criminals with guns. Mine Ruger has protected me against a thug with a 2x4 and hoodlums wielding (I kid you not) surf boards.

    There are criminals already making firearms as good as anything from WWII, in home shops outfitted with tools purchased from a hardware store. Make it harder to get guns, you'll just get more untraceable guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Some thoughts to arguments you've used here and in previous topics on the same subject:
    - Petty criminals aren't an organized unit with a mission and the mindset to do anything it needs to achieve it. They are just getting by in a dishonest way, and without free access to guns they would not have them and most would not have the means to acquire them. Anything beyond that pay grade is NOT the business of private citizens but police force and army.
    Criminals do not have "free access" to guns. In fact, thanks especially to Bill Clinton, criminals trying to get guns are allowed to walk, untouched, even though they are violating the law in seeking to do so.

    To say the government can tell citizens they cannot have their chosen means to defend themselves, that only the government can have that, is to tell the people that they are not free, but slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    - There is the absolutely undeniable fact that gun deaths in the US are about as large a percentage compared to anywhere else in the First World, as the difference between US military and the rest of it. Which is - disproportionately large. You can spin THEORIES and talk of PRINCIPLES and describe HYPOTHETICAL situations, but that statistic is COLD HARD FACT. Gun ownership has made more people dead than safe.
    So you claim that several million people each year in the US are being killed by guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    - You've talked about bad neighborhoods and how guns are necessary to be safe there, but that is false. A criminal is ALWAYS more willing than you to pull the trigger, and treating bad neighborhoods with guns is making them more volatile and unsafe instead of the opposite. Violence - or the threat of it - solves that problem as much as punishing bullies in schools resolves the issue of bullying at schools...
    LOL

    The statistic show that a criminal, even one with a weapon, is more likely to drop the weapon and run when faced with an armed homeowner (interestingly, not as much business owners, though the difference arguably isn't statistically significant). They do it hundreds of thousands of times a year.

    If everyone in a neighborhood got a handgun, and all together they got training for operating both individually and together, crime in that neighborhood would approach zero so closely as to be indistinguishable.

    And the threat of violence against the bad guys must work, or the cops wouldn't carry guns.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  34. #84
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    There are criminals already making firearms as good as anything from WWII, in home shops outfitted with tools purchased from a hardware store. Make it harder to get guns, you'll just get more untraceable guns.
    Yet in every country with stricter gun control there's also a fraction of the murder deaths.

    Saying "if you restrict firearms that just means fewer good people have them, the same number of bad people have them, and tragic crimes go up" is not supported out there in reality. It's fear theory only from gun owners.

  35. #85
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    This is populism. You have ONLY the rights your country gives you. We can spin all we want about virtue of existence crap, but if that were an objective truth, all countries in the world would be in the same place. They aren't. Your rights ARE given by the constitution, and the government's interpretation of it, and if you leave here and go live in Iran, your rights will change and be limited. You will also be stoned to death.
    "Populism"?

    It's fact. Governments are artificial entities created by humans, and so cannot have anything those humans didn't. All government authority comes from citizens assigning the government the authority to exercise some small portion of the rights the people have by virtue of their existence.

    Rights arise from the fact of self-ownership. Any time a government claims to be granting rights, liberty is already lost; after that, all is but privileges the keepers have decided to assign.

    If rights are determined by governments, then you must believe that the people of Libya who overthrew Kaddafi were immoral. In fact, iof rights are determined by governments, then the whole establishment of the United States was immoral.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  36. #86
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Not convincingly though. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that you can only own weapons that can be precisely directed at one person. Bombs didn't exist at the time the framers were writing.
    Really? That would surprise the Royal Navy of the time, which had not only bombs but grenades and mines.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  37. #87
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    109,320
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    I'm 100% certain the reason you are not allowed to own or make a nuke has absolutely nothing to do with "well there isn't an efficient way you could use it to stop a criminal and not hurt others."

    You guys are arguing everything from the corner of "how it can be used to protect yourself from crime" when that is not the legal basis for whether any weapon is something you are allowed to own and handle and carry around or not. The entire fixation with weapons being there to protect yourself from crime is an entirely invented argument by gun owners and isn't even mentioned in the constitution, which talked about militias. Pretty sure 1770's North America didnt have a heavy gun-armed urban home invasion problem.
    Ignorance is bliss.

    The FFs talked about self-defense as well. In fact, if you understood what "militia" meant, and "the security of a free state", you'd know that self-defense is just one part of the picture.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  38. #88
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    "Populism"?

    It's fact. Governments are artificial entities created by humans, and so cannot have anything those humans didn't. All government authority comes from citizens assigning the government the authority to exercise some small portion of the rights the people have by virtue of their existence.

    Rights arise from the fact of self-ownership. Any time a government claims to be granting rights, liberty is already lost; after that, all is but privileges the keepers have decided to assign.

    If rights are determined by governments, then you must believe that the people of Libya who overthrew Kaddafi were immoral. In fact, iof rights are determined by governments, then the whole establishment of the United States was immoral.
    His point was in actual reality your rights go so far as the government you are currently under respects those rights. You can't get married in this country, for example, even though I think we all know and agree that this is not morally correct... we're just waiting for the population and the government to catch up.

    You're arguing ideal, we're talking practical reality. I have a right to marry too, at least in my own interpretation of the Constitution... but the government does not yet reflect it.

  39. #89
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    If you can't fire the big gun, can you call yourself a porn star?
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  40. #90
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Yeah anyone who is pointing out that you can own a gutted tank with no weapons and thinks that's what we meant in the context of this discussion is just being intellectually slippery... bordering on dishonest.

  41. #91
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    No you CAN'T own a tank. You can own a tank shaped vehicle.
    You sure about that?

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ndJJH...%3DndJJHeNVwSM

  42. #92
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Yes I am.......
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  43. #93
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Since we apparently need to be explicit to the 3rd grade level... it's not LEGAL to own ARMED fully functional military hardware and drive it around with weapons systems active and claim it's an extension of your right to self defense.

    The law doesn't acknowledge that and, more broadly, does not recognize this argument that anything you can use for self defense is completely hands-off to regulate or restrict.

  44. #94
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Yes I am.......
    Well, here's some more video of that tank shaped vehicle putting some ordinance down range in case you aren't quite convinced we can own tanks.

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=JiKp8...%3DJiKp8SaxguY

  45. #95
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Not convinced, go look it up for yourself.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  46. #96
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by xbuzzerx View Post
    Yeah anyone who is pointing out that you can own a gutted tank with no weapons and thinks that's what we meant in the context of this discussion is just being intellectually slippery... bordering on dishonest.
    Or maybe the folks telling us we can't own fully operational tanks if we've got the scratch and a federal tax stamp are just plain wrong?

  47. #97
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Or maybe they're not.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  48. #98
    CE&P Secret Police xbuzzerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,011


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
    Or maybe the folks telling us we can't own fully operational tanks if we've got the scratch and a federal tax stamp are just plain wrong?
    Fully operational and armed? No one has said you can't own a glorified civilian humvee.

  49. #99
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    12,349


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/i...ve-device.html

    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.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  50. #100
    JUB 10k Club
    jackoroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    11,390


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Or maybe they're not.
    OK, you've seen the videos. What's your contention?

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •