The Anti-State - Page 3

mrnoodle · 10-12-2006, 04:38 PM

Anthrax powder is different from guns. It's not able to be controlled, only contained. A gun, whether .17 caliber or 6-inch, is a mechanism that must be operated.

The government has the right to ban anthrax powder because it's not a basic human right to spread disease.

Aliantha · 10-12-2006, 07:14 PM

I think it'd be terrible if the citizens of the US didn't have the right to bear arms. Imagine all the handicapped parking spaces you'd need.

JayMcGee · 10-18-2006, 07:24 PM

I'm all for your constitutional right to bear arms. I note, however, that it falls short of giving you the right to use those arms...

10-19-2006, 06:05 PM

You don't think you have a right to protect your life?

headsplice · 10-24-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You don't think you have a right to protect your life?

Equating saving one's life with unlimited use of firearms is a touch dishonest. Personally, I think we should carry swords. That way, when someone tries a drive-by decapitation, they'll probably only get the person they were trying for.

Flint · 10-20-2006, 10:15 AM

Do you have the right make the CHAK-CHAK pump action sound?

10-20-2006, 10:26 AM

It is required.

Flint · 10-20-2006, 10:37 AM

I just did a Google Image Search for "SNIKT" and apparently Wolverine is Edward Scissor-Hands now ???

10-20-2006, 10:37 AM

LOL!

10-24-2006, 03:39 PM

I have never understood the "back to the past" mentality of those who don't like guns.
They are here, that is just not going away.
As long as it is the most efficient and effective defense weapon to use and what the other person is most likely going to be carrying, it is what I am going to use.

Spexxvet · 10-25-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have never understood the "back to the past" mentality of those who don't like guns....

They use it as a response to the "it's protected by the constitution" arguement by gun advocates. The constitution has changed in many ways to reflect advancements in technology and wisdom. Women are allowed to vote, slavery has been abolished. The constitution was ammended to outlaw alcohol and then changed back to allow alcohol. It can be changed to outlaw handguns. The arguement that it is a right protected by the constitution is only as valid as the arguement for slavery and against a woman's right to vote and our right to drink alcohol was prior to the ammendments that effected those issues.

Listen, I do not support legislation restricting firearms. I would like there to be fewer hand guns. I believe that the world would be a better place without any hand guns. Do you agree?

I wouldn't have as much problem with hand guns if they were the same hand guns that were in existence when the founders wrote the constitution. They made the constitution based on the knoweldge they had at that time. Had they known the advancements that have been made, they may have framed the right to bear arms somewhat differently.

Happy Monkey · 10-25-2006, 10:43 AM

I think that there are three classes of weapon:

1) Weapons that should be available to the average person.
2) Weapons that should be available only to the military.
3) Weapons that should not be available.

Almost all gun debates are over where to draw the lines, not whether there should be lines, even though a strict reading of the Second Amendment would support the idea of no lines.

10-30-2006, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I think that there are three classes of weapon:

1) Weapons that should be available to the average person.
2) Weapons that should be available only to the military.
3) Weapons that should not be available.

Almost all gun debates are over where to draw the lines, not whether there should be lines, even though a strict reading of the Second Amendment would support the idea of no lines.

As long as the National Guard can NEVER use their military grade weapons on US soil, EVER, under ANY circumstances, against citizens. Sure.

& as long as cops get the same weapons that the rest of us get... but it is moot.
The plans are out there and anyone with a lathe and packing material will make a pistol as soon as their weapon is confiscated. I will be first in line for one. Only and idiot would not have the best weapon possible to protect themselves.
It is just an impossible scenario. You cannot go back in time.

Spexxvet · 10-30-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

As long as the National Guard can NEVER use their military grade weapons on US soil, EVER, under ANY circumstances, against citizens. Sure.

Even to fight the Bad Guys?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

& as long as cops get the same weapons that the rest of us get... but it is moot.
The plans are out there and anyone with a lathe and packing material will make a pistol as soon as their weapon is confiscated. I will be first in line for one.

You admit that only bad guys will then have guns. How can Cops fight them without having guns, themselves? Now, if only bad guys and Cops had guns, it would be easy for the Cops to identify the bad guys and take care of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Only and idiot would not have the best weapon possible to protect themselves.
It is just an impossible scenario. You cannot go back in time.

Ok, UG. Impossible = pessimism.

mrnoodle · 10-25-2006, 11:53 AM

There should be no lines for private ownership. The fear is that someone will get a howitzer or something and use it to wreak havok in the community, but that possibility is too remote to be included in the argument. The cost is prohibitive, there's little to no availability, and there are a number of legal obstacles besides the right to ownership that must be overcome.

For example, to privately own fully automatic weapons (yes, it's legal), you must pass an extensive background check similar to that given to applicants to the CIA or who work in nuclear facilities, buy a federal tax stamp (I think that's what it's called) for each item, and you essentially waive your right against "unreasonable search and seizure". Every component is catalogued, and must remain with the weapon it's catalogued to. The feds can check on the location of the weapon at any time day or night, and you must comply. You can't leave it out of your possession unless it's secured in a particular way, and if you transport it, you have to notify the authorities. I'm pulling these from memory, so I might have missed some or misrepresented some details, but that's essentially the way it works.

It's much easier to get one illegally.

10-12-2006, 04:38 PM	#1
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Anthrax powder is different from guns. It's not able to be controlled, only contained. A gun, whether .17 caliber or 6-inch, is a mechanism that must be operated. The government has the right to ban anthrax powder because it's not a basic human right to spread disease. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

10-12-2006, 07:14 PM	#2
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I think it'd be terrible if the citizens of the US didn't have the right to bear arms. Imagine all the handicapped parking spaces you'd need. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

10-18-2006, 07:24 PM	#3
JayMcGee Cardigan-wearing man Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Much Binding In The Marsh Posts: 1,082	I'm all for your constitutional right to bear arms. I note, however, that it falls short of giving you the right to use those arms... __________________ I like wearing cardigans...... my current favourite is an orange cable-knit with real leatherette buttons.

10-20-2006, 10:15 AM	#6
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Do you have the right make the CHAK-CHAK pump action sound? __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-20-2006, 10:37 AM	#8
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	I just did a Google Image Search for "SNIKT" and apparently Wolverine is Edward Scissor-Hands now ??? __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-19-2006, 06:05 PM	#4
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	You don't think you have a right to protect your life?

10-20-2006, 10:26 AM	#7
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	It is required.

10-24-2006, 03:39 PM	#10
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I have never understood the "back to the past" mentality of those who don't like guns. They are here, that is just not going away. As long as it is the most efficient and effective defense weapon to use and what the other person is most likely going to be carrying, it is what I am going to use.

10-25-2006, 10:43 AM	#12
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	I think that there are three classes of weapon: 1) Weapons that should be available to the average person. 2) Weapons that should be available only to the military. 3) Weapons that should not be available. Almost all gun debates are over where to draw the lines, not whether there should be lines, even though a strict reading of the Second Amendment would support the idea of no lines. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

10-25-2006, 11:53 AM	#15
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	There should be no lines for private ownership. The fear is that someone will get a howitzer or something and use it to wreak havok in the community, but that possibility is too remote to be included in the argument. The cost is prohibitive, there's little to no availability, and there are a number of legal obstacles besides the right to ownership that must be overcome. For example, to privately own fully automatic weapons (yes, it's legal), you must pass an extensive background check similar to that given to applicants to the CIA or who work in nuclear facilities, buy a federal tax stamp (I think that's what it's called) for each item, and you essentially waive your right against "unreasonable search and seizure". Every component is catalogued, and must remain with the weapon it's catalogued to. The feds can check on the location of the weapon at any time day or night, and you must comply. You can't leave it out of your possession unless it's secured in a particular way, and if you transport it, you have to notify the authorities. I'm pulling these from memory, so I might have missed some or misrepresented some details, but that's essentially the way it works. It's much easier to get one illegally. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh Last edited by mrnoodle; 10-25-2006 at 11:59 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)