This one's for you, GOPers

[UrbanPancake]

UrbanPancake, is that you?

No. I'm right here.

 

[MGKrebs]

The people being armed with the latest weaponry, including canons, allowed for the common defense and was an attempt to keep from having a standing army.

Is that true? I didn't realize the "army" didn't exist yet.

I'm currently reading a biography of Ben Franklin, but I'm only up to about 1760. Franklin has been put in charge of a militia to defend against the French and Indians. In Pennsylvania, they have levied a tax to pay for the militia. The Penns, of course, still own most of the land, and refuse to pay the tax, and so they are at odds with Franklin. It looks like the Penns are going to start their own, competing militia.

(For the record: I believe we have the right to own guns, but I also believe in gun control, i.e. I don't believe we have the right to own ANY gun. )

 

[Steve]

(For the record: I believe we have the right to own guns, but I also believe in gun control, i.e. I don't believe we have the right to own ANY gun. )

OMG! Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence? UFB!! "...we have the right to own guns...I don't believe we have the right to own ANY gun." I'd love to hear an expansion on that, for the record. Are you really John Kerry?

Or by "ANY gun" do you draw the line between AR-15s and rubber band guns? Is that what I'm feeling here?

 

[MGKrebs]

OMG! Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence? UFB!! "...we have the right to own guns...I don't believe we have the right to own ANY gun." I'd love to hear an expansion on that, for the record. Are you really John Kerry?

Or by "ANY gun" do you draw the line between AR-15s and rubber band guns? Is that what I'm feeling here?

i just don't think bazookas and tanks and stuff like that should be available without some kind of control. Widespread possession of heavy weapons by the citizenry will cause a lot of pain and destruction, and could not possibly overcome the standing military anyway, so what's the point? If we need to overthrow the government, we'll just have to go to France and ask them to help again.

 

[Steve]

i just don't think bazookas and tanks and stuff like that should be available without some kind of control. Widespread possession of heavy weapons by the citizenry will cause a lot of pain and destruction, and could not possibly overcome the standing military anyway, so what's the point? If we need to overthrow the government, we'll just have to go to France and ask them to help again.

I would pick this post apart, except that its just not worth doing so. Why don't you move somewhere out of the U.S. borders, please. You have again made an ass of yourself, MGKrebs...tanks, bazookas, standing military. You show your lack of reason, and knowledge with every new post.

Owning a BAR is a lot different than owning a tank, or missile, or (dare I jest) a "bazooka".

You don't know #### about ####, sir.

 

[Penn]

I would pick this post apart, except that its just not worth doing so. Why don't you move somewhere out of the U.S. borders, please. You have again made an ass of yourself, MGKrebs...tanks, bazookas, standing military. You show your lack of reason, and knowledge with every new post.

Owning a BAR is a lot different than owning a tank, or missile, or (dare I jest) a "bazooka".

You don't know #### about ####, sir.

OK Steve, I'm with you here, and 2nd A on the right own firearms; I have my own 9mm for target practice and home security, if I need it.(never had to use it in that capacity so far)

However, should the "average citizen" be allowed to purchase a 20mm Gatling Gun?

What use is it to the "average Citizen"? Kinda expensive for target shooting.

It might be usefull if you're trying to bring down a herd of rampaging deer.

Do you see what I'm saying?

If the firearm is bigger than what you need to bring down a Rhino with, what's the point of owning a firearm that outrageous? Just so you can boast that you actually own one?

 

[vraiblonde]

If we need to overthrow the government, we'll just have to go to France and ask them to help again.

Don't be silly. This is not about overthrowing our government. In my mind, it's about leveling the playing field with criminals.

Your average citizen isn't going to buy a bazooka, missile or tank. They couldn't afford it even if they were interested. Terrorists, however, have no problem getting their hands on weaponry - they've got the connections and the cash is there.

Bring it down to a local level now. If you want to break the law (and criminals DO break the law), you can buy whatever weapon suits your fancy. Guns bans and restrictions don't work and you can look at the stats of any city that has these laws as proof. Criminals will just break the law and get the weapons anyway and here you are, Maynard G. Krebbs, law abiding citizen, unable to protect yourself against them.

Not only that, but when someone uses a gun during the commission of a crime, the gun charge usually gets kicked out in lawyer negotiations. So what's the point?

It's unlikely that I, a suburbs dweller, will ever need to defend myself or my children against an armed attacker. But my neighbors in urban areas and business owners are VERY likely to be attacked by an armed individual. Why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves? If nothing else, it would make Mr. Criminal think twice because he wouldn't be so sure that grandma or the 7-11 clerk aren't packing heat.

Gun bans and restrictions don't make a lick of sense. It's just feel-good legislation that doesn't do anything for anyone, except let criminals know who they can jack up.

 

[vraiblonde]

what's the point of owning a firearm that outrageous? Just so you can boast that you actually own one?

Well...yeah. To me it's like my doll collection - what's the point of it other than that I love dolls and like to say, "Look here - this is my Scarlett O'Hara doll"?

I know a couple of people that own illegal firearms that they have never even fired. They sit in a case so the person can say, "Come here - let me show you this beauty." They would no sooner use that gun to fend off a criminal than I would beat someone over the head with my Queen Elizabeth bride doll.

 

[Penn]

Well...yeah. To me it's like my doll collection - what's the point of it other than that I love dolls and like to say, "Look here - this is my Scarlett O'Hara doll"?

I know a couple of people that own illegal firearms that they have never even fired. They sit in a case so the person can say, "Come here - let me show you this beauty." They would no sooner use that gun to fend off a criminal than I would beat someone over the head with my Queen Elizabeth bride doll.

OK, that's a good analogy.

However, I hope you would admit a Queen Elizabeth Bride doll is no where near as dangerous as a 20mm Gatling Gun!

But, look at it another way: let's say you're on vacation to Europe for 2 weeks.

Someone knows you own that weapon; He/she is joking about it with a friend,
and they are overheard discussing it with another cohort in a public establishment. Let's say criminal has overheard the conversation and writes down the name of the owner.

He checks the phonebook, or - no way! - the internet, and finds the home of that owner, gains entry to his house and steals the Gatling Gun.

Now what do we have? An armed to-the-teeth bad guy on the streets.

 

[Ken King]

OK, that's a good analogy.

However, I hope you would admit a Queen Elizabeth Bride doll is no where near as dangerous as a 20mm Gatling Gun!

But, look at it another way: let's say you're on vacation to Europe for 2 weeks.

Someone knows you own that weapon; He/she is joking about it with a friend,
and they are overheard discussing it with another cohort in a public establishment. Let's say criminal has overheard the conversation and writes down the name of the owner.

He checks the phonebook, or - no way! - the internet, and finds the home of that owner, gains entry to his house and steals the Gatling Gun.

Now what do we have? An armed to-the-teeth bad guy on the streets.

The 20 mike mike is not dangerous by itself. It isn't a danger until someone is standing behind it and has pulled the trigger.

 

[Ken King]

Someone knows you own that weapon; He/she is joking about it with a friend,
and they are overheard discussing it with another cohort in a public establishment. Let's say criminal has overheard the conversation and writes down the name of the owner.

He checks the phonebook, or - no way! - the internet, and finds the home of that owner, gains entry to his house and steals the Gatling Gun.

Now what do we have? An armed to-the-teeth bad guy on the streets.

What makes you think that your hypothetical vermin would get by the devices and security a person owning a weapon like this would have in place?

What iffing it is not an intelligent basis for an argument.

 

[Penn]

The 20 mike mike is not dangerous by itself. It isn't a danger until someone is standing behind it and has pulled the trigger.

I can't argue with at assessment.

However, Criminal: inherently dangerous + Gatling Gun - no threat here?

If the Secret Service, the folks guarding the President, knew of a hypothetical case like this was actually out there, somehow I don't think they'd look at it in a very casual manner.

 

[Larry Gude]

For the love of John Moses Browning...

Explosives and fully automatic weapons have been CONTROLLED since the 1930's.

You can't buy a gatlin gun unless you go through the Federal governments class III firearm process.

CRIMINALS BREAK LAWS TO AQUIRE FIREARMS.

The weapon used by the beltway snipers scares the uneducated because it looks scary. Well, they took one shot at a time and would have been BETTER served by grandpas bolt action 30-06 or .270.

Gun control today is ALL about gun prohibition.

END OF STORY.

 

[Ken King]

I can't argue with at assessment.

However, Criminal: inherently dangerous + Gatling Gun - no threat here?

If the Secret Service, the folks guarding the President, knew of a hypothetical case like this was actually out there, somehow I don't think they'd look at it in a very casual manner.

Did you burn a lot of brain cells to come up with that bit of wisdom? Do you actually think that a criminal is going to drag a gatling gun down the street? It isn't like they can just stuff it in their coat or down their pants.

Criminals are a threat all by themselves. They will use whatever they can get there hands on or their hands alone; laws mean nothing to them. The laws prohibiting the owning of any particular weapon applies only to law abiding citizens. The amendment says that the right to own firearms shall not be infringed. Now tell me how when my government prevents me from owning any firearm, that I might choose, stays within the spirit of our rule of government?

Oh yeah, what the hell are you talking about with your reference to the Secret Service? Unless a threat against the President has been made why would they care? Now on the other hand BATF, FBI, and local law enforcement might have an interest in who has certain weapons, but isn’t that what registration is all about?

 

[vraiblonde]

let's say you're on vacation to Europe for 2 weeks.

Someone knows you own that weapon; He/she is joking about it with a friend,
and they are overheard discussing it with another cohort in a public establishment. Let's say criminal has overheard the conversation and writes down the name of the owner.

He checks the phonebook, or - no way! - the internet, and finds the home of that owner, gains entry to his house and steals the Gatling Gun.

Now what do we have? An armed to-the-teeth bad guy on the streets.

Now there's a likely scenario.

"My friend, Joe Blow, who lives in Mechanicsville, MD owns a military M4 carbine!"

"No way!"

"Way!"

Criminal says "scribble scribble"

 

[Penn]

Oh yeah, what the hell are you talking about with your reference to the Secret Service? Unless a threat against the President has been made why would they care? Now on the other hand BATF, FBI, and local law enforcement might have an interest in who has certain weapons, but isn’t that what registration is all about?

So I named the incorrect agency who's jurisdiction this situation would fall under. Sue me.

Did you miss my inclusion of the word "hypothetical" in my text? Most times, I notice you read for comprehension; this time I'm not so sure. And, no it did not take a lot of brainpower to theorize that situation, either.

OK, so I was overboard using a Gatling Gun for an example, big deal.
But since we're on it, don't you think there are some fairly sophisticated criminals out there that might be able to bypass a fella's home security system?

As a parallel, you've got hackers out there who can and have, broken into corporate systems, banking institutions, and even military reservations. You think a person under hire from a criminal group would have much of a problem here?

Yes, the Gatling Gun may have been a little much, but if one were obtained illegally, who the hell is going to register that thing anyway?

 

[Ken King]

So I named the incorrect agency who's jurisdiction this situation would fall under. Sue me.

Did you miss my inclusion of the word "hypothetical" in my text? Most times, I notice you read for comprehension; this time I'm not so sure. And, no it did not take a lot of brainpower to theorize that situation, either.

OK, so I was overboard using a Gatling Gun for an example, big deal.
But since we're on it, don't you think there are some fairly sophisticated criminals out there that might be able to bypass a fella's home security system?

As a parallel, you've got hackers out there who can and have, broken into corporate systems, banking institutions, and even military reservations. You think a person under hire from a criminal group would have much of a problem here?

Yes, the Gatling Gun may have been a little much, but if one were obtained illegally, who the hell is going to register that thing anyway?

No I did not miss the word and hypothetically speaking, when conversing with someone that gives the air of being knowledgeable on a topic makes obvious and flagrant errors during the discussion one tends to question the validity of what is being said and the actual knowledge of that person. Hypothetically, I reason that I must be conversing with a fool.

Getting back to the matter at hand, the point that you are trying to make is absurd at best. You can twist it here, polish it there, and it is still a turd. Criminals will get the weapons they want and if they are truly as sophisticated as you contend they won’t be worrying about hitting John Q. Public’s meager arsenal; they will go for the real deal at a military facility or get them via other illegal means (black market).

I was speaking on registration as a means for law abiding citizens being able to own such weapons and not criminals. You are aware that it is a crime to possess a stolen weapon and that certain persons, due to reasonable restrictions outlined in law, cannot possess or own firearms? Given this it can be assured that a criminal wouldn’t register one, but the law abiding citizen should have the right to obtain legally and possess any firearm that they choose. If certain weapons are deemed extraordinary the ownership can be regulated with a registration process, but they shouldn’t be banned as this seems to be an infringement.

 

[Sharon]

However, should the "average citizen" be allowed to purchase a 20mm Gatling Gun?

What use is it to the "average Citizen"? Kinda expensive for target shooting.

It might be usefull if you're trying to bring down a herd of rampaging deer.

Do you see what I'm saying?

If the firearm is bigger than what you need to bring down a Rhino with, what's the point of owning a firearm that outrageous? Just so you can boast that you actually own one?

Hey Penn!

Why don't you ask the guys over at GatChat?

They had a shoot earlier this month in PA. Sounds like a lotta fun.

 

[vraiblonde]

Let's stop all this nonsense about petty criminals with sophisticated tracking knowledge and longshot conversations in bars. I would like someone, anyone, to give me a good reason, without a lot of far-fetched hypotheticals, as to why average citizens shouldn't be able to own any firearm they want to.

 

[Penn]

I was speaking on registration as a means for law abiding citizens being able to own such weapons and not criminals. You are aware that it is a crime to possess a stolen weapon and that certain persons, due to reasonable restrictions outlined in law, cannot possess or own firearms? Given this it can be assured that a criminal wouldn’t register one, but the law abiding citizen should have the right to obtain legally and possess any firearm that they choose. If certain weapons are deemed extraordinary the ownership can be regulated with a registration process, but they shouldn’t be banned as this seems to be an infringement.

We got way off line here on this one, it seems. Maybe I did not present the best type of case that I could have, fine.

Like I said, I support our rights as citizens to purchase a firearm of their choice for hunting, targetshooting, etc.

I guess I'm a little leery about some of the guns/firearms that I've seen in the Trade magazines that you and I apparently can purchase through a licensed
firearm dealer with a valid FFL number.

I've sold firearms before, so I'm familiar with the background checks one has to go through before purchasing a firearm. I've had the customer fill out the required form, then I would call it in to the BATF for approval or denial, and in some cases, the 3 day waiting period would arise, which resulted from a "red flag" the BATF found in their history.

We were not authorised to sell pistols, so I don't have much knowledge on that one, except I believe there was an automatic 10 day waiting period.
Is that how you understand it?

I just question the idea that an ordinary citizen should be able to purchase ANY BLESSED firearm he or she chooses.

Nothing should be prohibited from John Q. Public, as far as firearms go, for
him to purchase?

If our laws allow that, I'm not going to fall on my sword over it, I just feel a bit leery about it, OK?