Purchasing firearms/New assault weapons ban

Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Purchasing firearms/New assault weapons ban

Obama is our new president, and I fear that will present some problems for gun owners and future gun owners. Obama has repeatedly said he wants a permanent assault weapons ban, has supported banning the sale or transfer of any form of semi-automatic firearm, supports a national ban on concealed carry, and supports a ban on the possession of handguns. Most of the bans he want probably can not pass the legislator, but with a democratic legislator supporting him, I don't see how the dems can fail to re-institute the assault weapons ban at least. This has forced me to accelerate my plans to purchase a firearm. On the off-chance that the gun I want will be on the list of banned guns I need to buy it within a few months. I was wondering if anyone else on this site was fearing a further erosion of the 2nd amendment and perhaps thinking of purchasing firearms soon in order to be grandfathered in if their gun is later defined as an assault weapon. For the time being we still have Heller vs D.C. to protect us, so until Obama gets to make Supreme Court appointments I don't see any major loss of gun rights. Any thoughts or comment on this matter are welcome.

Also: I'm not a gun nut or a tin-hatter, I know that Obama can not ban all guns even if he wants to. Of all the things he wants involving gun control, I only predict that a renewal of the assault weapon's ban will happen.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I hope it does. Nobody needs

I hope it does. Nobody needs assault weapons. Personally I wish the 2nd ammendment would be repealed. I'd love to see the US more like Europe (more social welfare, no legal guns, less religion) but that's likely a pipe dream unfortunately. Maybe if they left the 2nd ammendment but you could only own weapons that existed when it was passed (1787 - ie single shot black powder guns. ) And anyone supporting concealed carry should spend the rest of their life in a mental hospital. I don't want anyone to have a gun in public. Anyone carrying a gun concealed in public should get an automatic life in supermax sentence.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I hope the dems

Personally, I hope the dems can't pull it out banning semi-automatic military style weapons. The DC case was a big win for gun rights and I think we can ride this out as the courts seem to be on our side for the moment. I am all for good common sense gum laws, but most of Obama's dreams for a polite civilized, gun free society are just a pipe dream. Since the "assault" weapons ban was repealed the number of deaths associated with such firearms didn't increase dramatically.

The number of murders in Chicago alone is terrible and Chicago, if I'm not mistaken, bans hand guns. Wait...... how can anyone kill somebody with an illegal weapon? Remember, criminals are criminals and prey more easily on those that are unarmed. If there were significant drops in murder rates I might approve of a ban, but the fact is there were no dramatic decreases in firearm related murders. It's been awhile since I looked up the stats, but any decrease in violent crime was more closely correlated to an improved economy rather than less AK-47s on the streets. Yeah I'm a little afraid for our second amendement rights. Luckily, I have my macked out Russian SKS already.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 My main protest with

 My main protest with banning firearms is that it usually just ends up to where the only people that have firearms are criminals and the government, which, in my mind, doesn't really help.

Although, I really don't see a reason for assault weapons, except that they're awesome.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: My main

butterbattle wrote:

 My main protest with banning firearms is that it usually just ends up to where the only people that have firearms are criminals and the government, which, in my mind, doesn't really help.

Actually I think the 1934 ban on automatic weapons in unconstitutional. The founders did not have the foresight to see the types of weapons available to society today, but the state of the art weapon for the militias were the state of the art for the common man. If I were to guess, I would think the founding fathers would want the people capable of defending themselves from whatever a tyrannical government had at their disposal. Sweden used to, not sure if they still do, have a requirement for all homes to possess at least one automatic weapon as defense against a threat to their country. They, at this point, had a very secure and safe society. I would venture to guess it was because of the large numbers of atheists in their society more than anything that contributed to their low murder rate.  

butterbattle wrote:

Although, I really don't see a reason for assault weapons, except that they're awesome.

Like there's any better reason?

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Maybe if

MattShizzle wrote:

 Maybe if they left the 2nd ammendment but you could only own weapons that existed when it was passed (1787 - ie single shot black powder guns.

Yeah, like the way the first amendment only covers hand powered printing presses and quill pens. If the right to free speech covers radios and televisions, then the right to bear arms covers modern rifles. The 2nd amendment allowed early Americans to own the best military firearms available at the time. Why should it no longer allow citizens to own modern military rifles?

Just for fun: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5518/1st2nd5882xp4.jpg

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
LIke I said, I wish the 2nd

LIke I said, I wish the 2nd ammendment would be repealed. TVs and radios can't kill a classroom full of kids or 100 people at a shopping mall. Using that logic, should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Using that

MattShizzle wrote:

Using that logic, should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads?

Using which logic? I don't remember laying down logic that allows individuals to own WMDs. I'm content with merely being able to own firearms such as rifles, sub-machine guns (yes, they are legal for private ownership), and handguns. The Supreme Court and I agree that the 2nd amendment is about private firearm ownership for the purposes of self defense (read the Heller v. District of Columbia decision). ICBM's and nuclear weapons are clearly not tools of private self defense and so are not covered by the 2nd amendment.

I am glad that you openly say you want to repeal the 2nd amendment. I never liked gun banners who want to keep the 2nd, yet also want to violate it. I see the only way to remove legal firearm ownership in the US as being a repealing of the 2nd amendment. Anything else is just begging for someone to appeal a conviction of breaking a gun control law in order to get a court to declare the law unconstitutional. Kind of like the way that San Francisco has twice banned handguns and twice California courts have struck down the ban (though the court did not use a 2nd amendment justification for striking down the ban). And let us not forget D.C.'s handgun ban that was struck down as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Using that logic, should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads?

Using which logic? I don't remember laying down logic that allows individuals to own WMDs. I'm content with merely being able to own firearms such as rifles, sub-machine guns (yes, they are legal for private ownership), and handguns. The Supreme Court and I agree that the 2nd amendment is about private firearm ownership for the purposes of self defense (read the Heller v. District of Columbia decision). ICBM's and nuclear weapons are clearly not tools of private self defense and so are not covered by the 2nd amendment.

I am glad that you openly say you want to repeal the 2nd amendment. I never liked gun banners who want to keep the 2nd, yet also want to violate it. I see the only way to remove legal firearm ownership in the US as being a repealing of the 2nd amendment. Anything else is just begging for someone to appeal a conviction of breaking a gun control law in order to get a court to declare the law unconstitutional. Kind of like the way that San Francisco has twice banned handguns and twice California courts have struck down the ban (though the court did not use a 2nd amendment justification for striking down the ban). And let us not forget D.C.'s handgun ban that was struck down as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

I think the point is that if a tyranny took over the US government then it would have a large number of nuclear warheads at its disposal. If the second amendment is there to make sure that people have weapons to fight off a possible tyranny then wouldn't they need nuclear weapons to counter the government?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Using that logic, should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads?

Using which logic? I don't remember laying down logic that allows individuals to own WMDs. I'm content with merely being able to own firearms such as rifles, sub-machine guns (yes, they are legal for private ownership), and handguns. The Supreme Court and I agree that the 2nd amendment is about private firearm ownership for the purposes of self defense (read the Heller v. District of Columbia decision). ICBM's and nuclear weapons are clearly not tools of private self defense and so are not covered by the 2nd amendment.

 

Okay, I have to ask this: You need a sub-machine gun for privte self defense?

 

Who the hell is attacking you Spetnaz?

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Okay, I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Okay, I have to ask this: You need a sub-machine gun for privte self defense?

Who the hell is attacking you Spetnaz?

 

Just because its a sub-machine gun, doesnt mean its fully-automatic

Granted, ive never come into contact with a singleshot uzi >.>

but your standard, registered, civillian MP-5 and co. are all semi-auto, single-shot sub-machine guns... which essentially makes them over-sized, 2handed pistols, with alot of ammo.

What Would Kharn Do?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Okay, I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Okay, I have to ask this: You need a sub-machine gun for privte self defense?

 

Who the hell is attacking you Spetnaz?

I'm too poor to buy a handgun at the moment, so there is no way I could afford the federal fees needed to purchase a fully automatic firearm. For that matter I only want a handgun, not a sub-machine gun. Though if others want sub-machine guns I see no reason to deny them their favored form of firearm. And when it comes to self defense with firearms, an intruder is equally dead if shot with a shotgun or if shot with an MP5.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I kind of liked Chris Rock's

I kind of liked Chris Rock's idea to leave the laws alone, but implement a $500 per bullet tax. Personally I think civilians should definitely not own anything other than hunting weapons and MAYBE pistols holding no more than 6 bullets - and aren't allowed to be carried loaded outside the home or firing range. And cities should be allowed to ban handguns.

 

The nuclear warhead comparison was valid - maybe it would have made more sense to use tanks, attack helicopters or such. After all, none of those existed in 1787 and are technically "arms. "

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:The

MattShizzle wrote:

The nuclear warhead comparison was valid - maybe it would have made more sense to use tanks, attack helicopters or such. After all, none of those existed in 1787 and are technically "arms. "

You can own a tank, an attack helicopter or a fighter plane if you want to. There are no laws against owning tanks or attack helicopters. Russia is selling them and the US government doesn't care if you buy one.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
But is the weaponry still

But is the weaponry still attached? Can you legaly own the ammo? What about the rockets and anti-tank guided missiles for the helicopters? If people can then wont you need SAMs to defend against the helicopters? What about fighter planes for someone who can afford? Should Bill Gates be able to form his own army? Pretty soon with that logic you do get to the point where it would be legitimate for private citizens to have nuclear warheads to defend themselves against armies controlled by individuals. I don't want to live in a society where people are allowed to carry concealed weapons in public or own weapons that can kill a dozen people in a few seconds.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Matt, im sorry... but

Matt, im sorry... but listening to you spout off about weaponry, for me, is the equivalent listening to creationist spout off about the demons of evolution to you

What Would Kharn Do?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There are no laws

Quote:

There are no laws against owning tanks or attack helicopters.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can own a tank with a working cannon.  The tanks that civilans can buy do not have working cannons.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I kind of

MattShizzle wrote:

I kind of liked Chris Rock's idea to leave the laws alone, but implement a $500 per bullet tax. Personally I think civilians should definitely not own anything other than hunting weapons and MAYBE pistols holding no more than 6 bullets - and aren't allowed to be carried loaded outside the home or firing range. And cities should be allowed to ban handguns.

A 500 dollar tax on one bullet would only hurt the people living in poor communities. These are the people that are most in need of self-defensive weapons. The District of Columbia had the highest murder rate for years and many of those living there were poor. I won't even mention the hand gun ban that didn't work there. Chicago is in the same boat. They have high poverty and a high murder rate. Oh and they have a hand gun ban in place as well, yet lots of people murdered with handguns.

Hopefully with the reversal of the ban in DC the murder rate will decrease as I expect it will. In most communities carrying a loaded weapon is a crime. In California we have to have firearms unloaded and the ammunition and weapon seperated in a locked container for transport. There are all ready common sense laws on the books for this.

 

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Pretty

MattShizzle wrote:

Pretty soon with that logic you do get to the point where it would be legitimate for private citizens to have nuclear warheads to defend themselves against armies controlled by individuals.

Nope. Perhaps you have noticed that neither I nor Cali_Atheist2 have supported private ownership of nuclear weapons. We simply have not laid down logic to support private ownership of WMDs. What part of the Supreme Court's opinion that the 2nd amendment protects private firearm ownership for the purpose of self defense is confusing? Can you show me what part of "private firearm ownership for the purpose of self defense" leads to needing private ownership of nuclear weapons?

If there was a $500 dollar tax on ammunition, then people would just make their own. It is not that hard to make ammunition. Anyone mechanically savvy enough to assemble IKIA furniture could make ammo. Also, that kind of a tax would open up a huge market for illegal ammunition. The last thing we need is a 'war on ammo' to complement the 'war on drugs.' Though I'm not too worried since the legislator a few years back shot down a proposed bill to put a 50 cent per round tax on ammo. Politicians love that NRA money too much to screw gun owners too hard. Like I said, they will probably revive the assault weapons ban, but they won't do much else.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Did you even read the entire

Did you even read the entire post? Of course it was the idiots on the supreme court (plus the one "swing" vote) that made that decision. The "good" justices dissented. I really hope a few of the conservative justices die so they can get replaced once Obama's president. The whole gun thing is another reason I see Europeans as way more rational than Americans.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3651
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:There

deludedgod wrote:

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you can own a tank with a working cannon.  The tanks that civilans can buy do not have working cannons.

                                              You are absolutely correct.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


RagingInfidel
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-11-09
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: And

MattShizzle wrote:

 And anyone supporting concealed carry should spend the rest of their life in a mental hospital. I don't want anyone to have a gun in public. Anyone carrying a gun concealed in public should get an automatic life in supermax sentence.

I have a permit to carry, I also have proper training and know how to properly use the weapon, as far as banning guns the cats already out of the bag and getting them back in is impossible so it's best to be able to defend yourself, banning guns only gets the guns away from law abiding citizens and leaves them to the mercy of well armed criminals, I also have a AR-15 I built myself and several other weapons, and a well armed population is what keeps radical goverments in control, and assualt weapons are good for fighting back, plus they are very fun!!!

MattShizzle wrote:

 Religion is the worst thing ever invented by humans.

Followed by Gun Control!!!

 


Southernfarmer (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kook

You are the most unbelieveable lunatic fringe liberal I have ever heard. You really belong in Europe.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Thank you. Europeans are

Thank you. Europeans are much more intelligent and rational than Americans. Especially the likes of you from your name you fucktard inbred racist asshole that shoots at strangers who come on your property. Handguns should be illegal and carry a 25 year penalty for posession and an automatic death penalty for anyone carrying concealed. The US is a country full of fucktards. I'm embarassed to be American. If I could afford it I'd move to Europe. The US is so fucking stupid it's pathetic. I fucking hate this country. Maybe with Obama as president things will be better but there are too many stupid right wing idiots.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Southernfarmer wrote:You are

Southernfarmer wrote:
You are the most unbelieveable lunatic fringe liberal I have ever heard.

Wow, that's a subtle username. But, yeah, he's probably the most liberal person you've ever come in contact with. 

Quote:
You really belong in Europe.

Lol

Quote:
Handguns should be illegal and carry a 25 year penalty for posession and an automatic death penalty for anyone carrying concealed.

*sigh* Now that's liberal.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Chad Payne (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
second amendment ban

you are a complete and total retard!  Pricks like you are the reason the fathers of this country went through what they did!  The second amendment was written over two hundred years ago simply because they knew one day this would happen. the awb is banning Rguns on nothing more than apperance.  Just because it looks like a military rifle now it is an assult weapon.  It's not the AR-15 is probably the most popular varmin rifle in the world and its an assult weapon. yet less than one percent of the gun crimes were commited with this popular rifle!  Today an awb is not going to help with crime when the laws today are not even enforced.  someone gets caught with a full auto class three weapon and they get probation? drug dealers and rapest get nothing.  You start letting the gonverment take away weapons and it's just a matter of time before they take them all and then the bad guys are the only ones with guns.  austrilla did this and crime went up 70 percent. and if you think its so good in europe then buy a damn ticket and get out and leave the constitution alone, or would you alllow them to ban the first amendment!!


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
According to data compiled

According to data compiled by the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002, deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents account for almost twice as many deaths caused as firearms. If we really want to ban things that kill, we need to consider the motor vehicle. Not only are they death traps on wheels, they also destroy the environment. Unlike a Colt. 45, cars could possibly destroy all life on earth!

And what about bathtub/shower related deaths and injuries? Emergency rooms report an estimated 1,700,000 bathtub and shower related injuries per year in the United States alone. Many of these injuries prove fatal. Clearly, bathing has to go!

Over 45,000 non-bathing fall fatalities were reported in 2000. The solution is clear. People must be forbidden to stand, walk, run, sit in chairs, or lay in beds!

Some 3,000 odd people choke to death by eating every single year. This death rate is too damned high, people! The only way we can fix this is to have our food administered to us by trained specalists!

This tells me that weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing are less effective than they should be. Rather than banning firearms, we need to be working on making them more efficient. I mean, Goddamn, some of the things that aren't designed for killing are doing more of the killing than firearms are! Something is seriously wrong with this picture! We should be ashamed of ourselves to have failed to develop this technology at a pace consistant with our other technologies. The time has come to bring the firearm up to speed. After all, we atheists in America will all be neding them when the Theocratic States of America is formed and we have to fight for our lives to reach the Canadian border.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If I could afford it I'd

If I could afford it I'd leave this asshat country in a second. What do you have, 3 teeth you dumb fucktard redneck? Ever notice they don't have the gun crime in Europe they have here? That's because Europeans are smarter than Americans. I do wish the 2nd ammendment would be repealed. I'd like to see only hunting weapons allowed - definitely not handguns. Rednecks like you in prison would be a good thing. Why don't you go back to wearing your pointy hat. I fucking hate this country because of the idiots like you that let people have guns and let business be out of control. Hopefully with Obama being president that shit ends now. I do think 25 years in prison for carrying a handgun and life in prison for carrying one concealed would be a good idea. And life in prison with no parole for using a gun in a crime.

 

Please, Brian? Stop letting unregistered people post. It really lets the fucktards run wild.

 

I see atheists can use fallacies too. Ever think nearly everyone bathes but only the fucktard rednecks own guns? So maybe a much smaller percentage of falling will cause more deaths than the ones caused by weapons intended to kill that no civilian should own?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:only the

MattShizzle wrote:
only the fucktard rednecks own guns
I own a gun. I'm hurt.


 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The 2nd Ammendment needs to

The 2nd Ammendment needs to go and there needs to be special prison for illegal gun ownership - where there are daily beatings, rotten food thrown in their faqce every meal and every bone on body broken for breaking prison rules. Allowing civilians to own anything more than single shot rifles is fucking insane.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
violence always finds a way

violence always finds a way ^_^

 

I hereby support Matt in his anti gun tyraid on the off chance that it will force humans to construct new forms of weaponry!... like mass drivers!

Who needs full auto, when a man can finally... FINALLY... snipe a tank!

What Would Kharn Do?


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:If I could

MattShizzle wrote:

If I could afford it I'd leave this asshat country in a second. What do you have, 3 teeth you dumb fucktard redneck? Ever notice they don't have the gun crime in Europe they have here? That's because Europeans are smarter than Americans. 

Gawd, but I am soooo silly! I always thought that Switzerland was part of Europe! Wth an estimated 420,000 assault rifles in private homes, and from between 1.2 million and 3 millions firearms in the hands of private citizens, they also have one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world.  And bear in mind that the population of Switzerland is only 7.5 million.

I'm guessing now that my geography is all screwed up, and Switzerland is probably the next town over from Kennesaw, Georgia. You know, that town in Georgia that in 1982 passed an ordinance that made every head of a household maintain a firearm and ammunition. This caused crime rates to plummet, and led to Family Circle magazine naming Kennesaw as one of the ten best towns for families in 2007. In fact, the town has not had a murder in 26 years, exactly the amount of time that the mandatory gun ownership law was began.

So I guess that I'll slink back into my little corner, totally confused about geography and wondering how it is possible that a town in Georgia can have so many guns with such low crime rates. Maybe they are too busy wondering why the people in the next town over are speaking a different language.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
25 years for possession for

25 years for possession for hand guns, well we arent quite that tough in the UK, its a mandatory 5 years (2 years for a knife). But the reality is the police think you are carrying a gun then the odds on you making trial alive is probably less than 50/50.

Gun access is really a weird American issue, if a politican wanted to increase gun access he really would be seen at the same level as a paedophile. That really is no exaggaretion , we have neo-nazi parties in the UK and even they don't mention arming the public on their policies.

 

It's all down to the American cult of the individual thinking you can be indpendent (you can't) or self-reliant (you can't) or if you work hard you are guaranteed success (you arent) and its also partly a factor due to geography. If you live in a high density population (probably around 2000 people within 400 metres of me) you really don't want people having private arsenal, the cross fire would finish you off Smiling

 

 

 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Am I correct that you have

Am I correct that you have to be in the military to own an assault rifle in Switzerland and using it other than in defense of Switzerland itself results in extremely draconian penalties?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Did you

MattShizzle wrote:

Did you even read the entire post? Of course it was the idiots on the supreme court (plus the one "swing" vote) that made that decision. The "good" justices dissented. I really hope a few of the conservative justices die so they can get replaced once Obama's president. The whole gun thing is another reason I see Europeans as way more rational than Americans.

 

C'mon over then Matt, EU's waiting. You know what the difference between London crime and any US city crime trend is - in the US they use guns, here they use knives. They achieve similar results tho. BTW not all Europe is as anti gun as you think. Switzerland has rather high private gun ownership, higher than New Jersey propbably. You also have limited gun ownership in the UK.

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Am I

MattShizzle wrote:

Am I correct that you have to be in the military to own an assault rifle in Switzerland and using it other than in defense of Switzerland itself results in extremely draconian penalties?

Incorrect. While assault rifles are issued to the militia, the man may keep the rifle even after being out of military service. The rifle is converted to semi automatic in this case. One may also purchase civilian versions of military rifles. Everyone over the age of 18 that has no criminal record, is mentally sound, and not considered a security risk can apply for a license and own firearms.

Criminal penalties depend on intent, with harsher ( up to 5 years imprisonment ) penalties given if the person is willfully committing an offense. Often there is no sentence or just a fine for simple negligence or or failure to comply to firearm laws without intent to commit a crime. These are hardly Draconian penalties.

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Guns aren't very good

Guns aren't very good torture devices for Matt's regime anyways. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
kostel25 wrote:C'mon over

kostel25 wrote:


C'mon over then Matt, EU's waiting. You know what the difference between London crime and any US city crime trend is - in the US they use guns, here they use knives. They achieve similar results tho. BTW not all Europe is as anti gun as you think. Switzerland has rather high private gun ownership, higher than New Jersey propbably. You also have limited gun ownership in the UK.

Switzerland doesn't have a military, instead all the populace is a member of the militia.  Having a nation where everyone is armed makes it more difficult to occupy.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to greatly downsize the U.S. military to a few thousand people but seeing that Americans find recycling too difficult I doubt they could make the effort to form a well regulated militia.


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:Switzerland

D-cubed wrote:

Switzerland doesn't have a military, instead all the populace is a member of the militia.  Having a nation where everyone is armed makes it more difficult to occupy.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to greatly downsize the U.S. military to a few thousand people but seeing that Americans find recycling too difficult I doubt they could make the effort to form a well regulated militia.

It might be more difficult to occupy, but it's not much more difficult to exterminate.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:The 2nd

MattShizzle wrote:

The 2nd Ammendment needs to go and there needs to be special prison for illegal gun ownership - where there are daily beatings, rotten food thrown in their faqce every meal and every bone on body broken for breaking prison rules. Allowing civilians to own anything more than single shot rifles is fucking insane.

What is with Matt's torture fantasies? First it is life long beatings and humiliations for people who own an overseas factory. Then it was cutting the fingers, then the arms, and then the penises off of people who smuggle. Now it is life long beatings and bone breaking for those who own firearms. Why can't we adopt an attitude of "I don't like guns, so I won't purchase any," rather than "I don't like guns, so lets beat and torture gun owners and humiliate them in prison for the rest of their lives." You are allowed to not like something without wanting to torture people over it.

By the way: some European countries have bans of private firearm ownership, some don't and some have higher per capita firearm ownership than the US. Europe is not anti-gun. Some European nations are, some aren't. Let's try to not generalize too much.

And what is with the attack on rednecks? My redneck relatives don't like guns, and I do. They refer to me as a "California hippy" and I am the only member of my family who is interested in firearms. Lets avoid thinking that redneck=toothless, gun nut, klansmen and European=smarter than Americans and supports total ban on firearm ownership.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Well Matt, all I can say is

Well Matt, all I can say is that our beloved constitution gives you the right to express your opinion. It also gives us the right to blow your balls off should you attempt to infringe upon our freedom and constitutional rights. So it all works out well in the end.         

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


kostel25
kostel25's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2008-09-04
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:By the

Jormungander wrote:

By the way: some European countries have bans of private firearm ownership, some don't and some have higher per capita firearm ownership than the US. Europe is not anti-gun. Some European nations are, some aren't. Let's try to not generalize too much.

And what is with the attack on rednecks? My redneck relatives don't like guns, and I do. They refer to me as a "California hippy" and I am the only member of my family who is interested in firearms. Lets avoid thinking that redneck=toothless, gun nut, klansmen and European=smarter than Americans and supports total ban on firearm ownership.

 

Totally agree. Stereotyping hardly ever works. People are a truly diverse and difficult to pigeon-hole breed. Take me for instance. I'm a fiscal conservative libertarian, gay, atheist, PRO-gun (to a degree), pro-life (with exceptions) capitalist. That basically means that in the US I could not have a party i could cast my vote for and in the UK I have to stick with the Tories for the lack of a better choice. I'm so sick of people assuming that just because I'm gay I'm automatically a left-wing, anti-war socialist tree hugger. On the other hand I would never EVER put myself in the same category with Sarah Palin, and I do believe that the climate is changing that we do need to tackle the pollution and slow down on crazy endless consumption.

 

Also what is conservative in the UK is certainly not the same as what passes for conservative in the US. Many British conservatives are Obamamaniacs, where as (perhaps I'm wrong here) in the US that would rather be an oxymoron.

So yes, there are rednecks who don't have guns, gays who are pro-life and religionists who are pro-choice. Ya just never know!!!

What's the difference between Texas and Saudi Arabia? In Texas they execute you for murder, in Saudi Arabia they excecute you for having a Xmass tree.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm pretty much as far to

I'm pretty much as far to the left as you can get on nearly every issue that exists. I hate capitalism and consider pro-lifers the scum of the Earth and would allow abortion up until birth for any reason no questions asked. I not only don't want to own a gun I don't want people that could potentially use them on me to have them either. Only military and police should have guns other than single-shot rifles and shotguns. I vote Democrat because it's the closest to my views. I once took a political test that said compared to me Marxists are reactionary.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I not only

MattShizzle wrote:

I not only don't want to own a gun I don't want people that could potentially use them on me to have them either. Only military and police should have guns other than single-shot rifles and shotguns.

Man, do you really think that police and military have a little " Don't pop a cap in Matt's ass " computer chip embedded in their heads?  Of the over 200 police officers I have personally met, only two of them are not the typical high school bully/thugs that we all know and love. The job attracts that mentality. State Troopers do psych screening, but your average guy with a badge is the fellow that used to give you wedgies in gym. The only difference now is that they can wedgie you and cuff you for resisting arrest if you try and stop them.

And the military? Puhleese! Your typical grunt is college aged, but too dumb to get into college. Think Animal House with plastic assault rifles.

 I've got Joe the high school linebacker that never learned to read patrolling my streets, and the cast of Road Trip defending my borders. S'cuse me, but I think I had rather take my chances defending myself.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Man, do you

Desdenova wrote:

Man, do you really think that police and military have a little " Don't pop a cap in Matt's ass " computer chip embedded in their heads?  Of the over 200 police officers I have personally met, only two of them are not the typical high school bully/thugs that we all know and love. The job attracts that mentality. State Troopers do psych screening, but your average guy with a badge is the fellow that used to give you wedgies in gym. The only difference now is that they can wedgie you and cuff you for resisting arrest if you try and stop them.

And the military? Puhleese! Your typical grunt is college aged, but too dumb to get into college. Think Animal House with plastic assault rifles.

 I've got Joe the high school linebacker that never learned to read patrolling my streets, and the cast of Road Trip defending my borders. S'cuse me, but I think I had rather take my chances defending myself.

 

totally 1000% true, beyond a doubt...

 

and the worst is when you combine the 2, into MP's! *shiver*

What Would Kharn Do?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't see that in cops.

I don't see that in cops. And every gun owner around here I've met is the typical ultra-right wing racist ignorant redneck. And some of them even think the right to own guns is in the Bible. Yes. More than 1000 years before gunpowder was invented they wrote down people should be able to own guns. Allowing civilians to own handguns, let alone automatic weapons is strapped-down in the mental hospital screaming "BLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!" smearing shit on the wall and biting ones own fingers off insane.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I don't

MattShizzle wrote:

I don't see that in cops. And every gun owner around here I've met is the typical ultra-right wing racist ignorant redneck. And some of them even think the right to own guns is in the Bible. Yes. More than 1000 years before gunpowder was invented they wrote down people should be able to own guns. Allowing civilians to own handguns, let alone automatic weapons is strapped-down in the mental hospital screaming "BLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!" smearing shit on the wall and biting ones own fingers off insane.

I take it this means that you don't approve of the 40mm grenade launcher I mounted underneath my Tommy gun?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm hoping you are joking.

I'm hoping you are joking. If not you definitely belong in federal prison. I still think the most a civilian should own is a single-shot rifle or shotgun and violating gun laws should result in 25 years in supermax.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I'm hoping

MattShizzle wrote:

I'm hoping you are joking. If not you definitely belong in federal prison. I still think the most a civilian should own is a single-shot rifle or shotgun and violating gun laws should result in 25 years in supermax.

You should approve then. It is a single shot grenade launcher. After all, civilians shouldn't need more than one grenade at a time. Anything more is overkill.

Violating the constitution by trying to infringe on rights should be punishable by having a thin tube of glass shoved into the offenders urethral tract, then tapping the glass with the butt of an assault rifle, followed by skinning the person alive and lowering him or her slowly into a vat of tepid, salted isopropyl alcohol. 

Should they survive the preliminary punishment, incarceration for no less than 50 years in a cell containing homosexual gorillas pumped full of testosterone would be the next step.

Awww, ain't creative torture grand? Smiling

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
And yet you have not been

And yet you have not been able to clearly demonstrate any real reason why all gun owners are mentally unstable. Of course I suppose you wouldn't have much time in between your torture fantasies and delusions of morality to actually come up with a real reason for your beliefs.

I suppose it's tragically ironic that out of all of the people who have posted in this thread on both sides, the only person displaying genuine sociopathic tendencies is you(*1).

Furthermore, I would like to point out the supremely retarded and utterly fallacious nature of your judgment that 'since all of the gun owners I know are rednecks, then all gun owners are rednecks.' You have in this case completely ignored the possibility of other aspects of the scenario causing the observed result.

What is probably the most hi-bloody-larious part of your 'argument' is that it is so brilliantly similar to the theist’s argument that atheists lack a sense of morality. You have provided no proof of your claim, and even when proof of the opposite (SEE: Switzerland, or better yet, that city in Georgia someone else mentioned) is provided you have blatantly ignored this evidence and continued to insist that you are right, or claimed ignorance on a fact and then ignored it and continued to state that you are right.

In the Case of Switzerland, I would chalk up their low murder rate while having a high gun ownership rate to the fact that they have a fairly community oriented sense of gun ownership. I have my doubts about whether or not the militia system employed by the Swiss would truly be effective in the extremely individualistic culture of the USA, though it would still be worth a try.

Now I'm going to ask you one question. Are you ever going to stop being a coward and step up to defend your argument with either evidence or logic?

@ Desdenova (and The Doomed Soul will probably like this too);
“There’s no such thing as Overkill, there’s only kill and having fun.”
-I think I got this from somewhere, but I don’t remember where.

And yes, yes it is. Eye-wink

*1: This statement is no longer entirely true, now that The Doomed Soul has showed up and Desdenova and I have started joking about creative torture. However my point is still valid and still stands.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Well to respond to the

Well to respond to the asshats here

 

I doubt if that story about the town in Georgia is anything more than one of those internet stories. Georgia is an extreme redneck state. Notice the redneck states here with lax gun laws have way higher murder rates than the civilized states that restrict gun ownership (I believe Massachusettes has signs on the highway warning illegal gun posession has a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence. ) It wouldn't be violating the constitution if the US did the sensible thing and repealed the 2nd ammendment. BTW legal scholars are divided over whether it means anyone can own a gun or it simply allows state militias (ie the National Guard. ) That would make more sense. I guess Switzerland is the exception to mostly rational Europe. They also have the idiotic bank laws that allow criminals to hide their money. When I think of Europ I think of the most rational countries there like Britain, France and the Scandinavian countries. If Obama gets to replace the asshat justices and they overturn that idiotic decision in DC and bring back the AWB they need to make it retroactive that any assault weapons need to be turned in. Anyone refusing should be considered a terrorist and dealt with accordingly.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team