(December 18, 2012 at 11:50 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: The current system seems to be working just fine with regards to legally owned machine guns. Why change it?

Why risk it? There is no justification for a private citizen to own such a weapon.

(December 19, 2012 at 12:10 am)Ryantology Wrote:

(December 18, 2012 at 11:50 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: The current system seems to be working just fine with regards to legally owned machine guns. Why change it?

Why risk it? There is no justification for a private citizen to own such a weapon.

Why risk what? As an American I am 23,000 times more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to be murdered with a legally owned privately held machine gun. Historically the odds are the same as they are of me being struck by a meteorite. 1 person in the last 78 years. Where is the risk?

(December 18, 2012 at 10:07 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(December 18, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Obviously I know what the pro-gun advocates would like.

What is it the anti-gun advocates want? I'm just curious. Could one of you write me out a summary of the legislation that you feel would protect the constitution and offer the safeguards that we all would like to see? Or is the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment that you would like?

No accusation here. Just curious.

Here are ten items, to start with. For brevity's sake, assume that any mention of firearms involves those designed to discharge ammo or shot of sufficient size and/or with sufficient force to be lethal. So, I'm not talking about pellet or BB guns.

Whee! I get to piece-by-piece! 8D

Quote:1. All firearms regardless of size, shape or purpose should be registered with authorities. This registration should be renewed on a regular basis.

Yes.

Quote:2. All transactions involving firearms, even if no money is exchanged, must be reported to authorities by all involved parties within 24 hours of the transaction.

Yes.

Quote:3. Magazines should be limited to carry no more than six rounds.

Mm, sorry, but since I go to the shooting range and I partake at minimum in 10-round 15-second shoots, unless there's a caveat allowing this for recreational purposes then...no, I'm gonna have a problem with this and so are others.

Quote:4. All firearms which are designed to fire in full automatic or burst automatic should be completely banned. Modifying an existing firearm to give it either capability should be a class-D felony.

Draconian. No. If the guns are all already registered and regularly reported, all felonious individuals barred from purchase and mandated safety classes are taken, and possessing an unregistered firearm is a Class E and carrying a weapon of any kind in public is illegal, this becomes extraneous.

Quote:5. Knowingly possessing any unregistered firearm should be a class-E felony. The sale or transfer of an unregistered firearm should be a class-D felony.

Agreed. I would actually bump up the sale or transfer to a higher felony since they would be knowingly partaking in sales of highly dangerous material where, in a society where the other laws were implemented, would realize that no good was going to come from this sale/transfer.

Quote:6. No more than one firearm of any variety may be possessed by all persons living in a household. Registered hunters may possess a second, which cannot be a handgun.

Again, no, draconian. If the other laws are in effect, and you own one gun, then what harm is owning multiple fully-licensed and registered firearms going to be, especially if you're a shooting enthusiast like me who uses different guns for different conditions? This is, again, extraneous.

Quote:7. No firearms may be carried concealed in public places under any circumstances.

Eh. I'm kind of undecided on this one. On the one hand, chances are if you're carrying a concealed firearm, you may be up to no good. On the other, carrying a concealed firearm has saved my life several times. I might state this as extraneous; if all guns are registered, and every individual has to go through an extensive background check to clear their right to purchase or own a firearm, then there can't be any harm in carry-concealing. Then again, there's a first time for everything. And why would you need to carry-conceal if every gun is registered and all possessors checked? Maybe if you're suspicious of the government's ability to actually do its damn job...like any sensible human being would be, you would. I'd lean towards the "no" here but I'd be willing to hear some debate on it.

Quote:8. Conviction of any violent offense should bar a person from possessing firearms permanently, unless the conviction is overturned.

Yes. This. A thousand times "Yes this!"

Quote:9. In order to qualify for a firearms license, one must pass a mandated firearms safety training program annually.

Agreed. I would go on to add that if you fail any of these tests you must turn over all firearms until you next pass the test...a year later. If you don't like it, too fucking bad; you should've been paying more attention to safely maintaining and securing the lethal weaponry you possessed.

Quote:10. All firearms must be stored in a locked, stationary safe in the home (not in a shed or auxiliary building) when not in use. The safe must be registered with authorities. Unless specifically being transported, firearms may not be stored in vehicles for any reason. The owner is responsible for making sure the firearms are secure.

Sure, why not. I would state that perhaps there should be specifically-made gun lockers sold at discounted prices when purchasing one's first firearm to facilitate this, but that'd be a business decision. A sort of "necessary accessory" kind of thing.

Quote:The second amendment gives you the right to own firearms, but that right should not be without significant limits. It should not be easy or cheap, as it is now. The question every person should ask themselves before purchasing a weapon is "how much do I really need this"?

The limitations should not be on the possession of quantity but rather should be on the limitations of the individual to show responsibility. One who is responsible and mature and of good intent should never suffer for those who are irresponsible, immature, and of foul intent. I would add that two psychological reviews should be made by separate psychologists to determine the mental health of an individual prior to being licensed to own a firearm, and that for any healthcare provider accepting an "incentive" to clear the individual for purchase should be a punishable Class E felony, along with the individual being stripped of their license to practice.

The question should not be "how much do I really need this," but rather "who should be the one paying the penalty for being a murderous dick?"[/quote]

(December 18, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Obviously I know what the pro-gun advocates would like.

What is it the anti-gun advocates want? I'm just curious. Could one of you write me out a summary of the legislation that you feel would protect the constitution and offer the safeguards that we all would like to see? Or is the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment that you would like?

No accusation here. Just curious.

Why do you force it to be an "us and them" situation? Why does someone have to be anti-gun in your opinion to be pro-regulation?

(December 18, 2012 at 8:33 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: No idea what you are talking about.

That is convenient.

Quote:You didn't read. They cut the power & phone in the middle of the night & he was with his very pregnant wife. I guess you would have just let the meth heads kill you as you tried to hit them with a stick or something. That's what home invaders generally do over here, no witnesses.

Still not seeing how this means someone has a right to bear arms. My original statement still stands.

Instead of appealing to emotion, or arguing from personal experience, why not try and give me a tangible reason as to why you think guns are a right.

In that circumstance, sure, a gun could've helped. I'm not saying it couldn't (and in this instance it most certainly did). However it could of also gotten both the man, his wife and his unborn baby killed by forcing them into a shootout, which they may not of had the fortune to win.

For the record, if I was in this circumstance, I'd have probably used a gun if it was to hand to protect my wife and kid. Still doesn't mean it's a right to own a gun, nor does it make it the correct and rational decision.

It's simply not a good enough argument to say 'having guns might help in a very rare circumstance, provided you don't get killed first' THEREFORE... GUNS ARE A RIGHT.

And with regards to what home invaders generally do, am I supposed to take your word on that? Or do you know them personally?

Quote:We already did. Over here, We the People *are* the government.

Keep telling yourself that mate.

(December 18, 2012 at 10:03 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Very interesting. Does the ground freeze where you live?

Heh, it sure does. Did you forget I live in Scotland?

Quote:That's a good plan. But even if my former schoolmate was able to do something like that (he's not, if I had to guess he's 6'7" & 350 lbs) his pregnant wife most certainly couldn't.

Yes, that is definitely true. I don't judge the guy for successfully protecting his family.

Anyway, I also have a Gundam in my garage to protect myself with... but I mainly have that to fight off Battle Pope.

(December 18, 2012 at 9:16 pm)Shell B Wrote: Just to be clear, there is only one kind of reality. In it, you get pissed easily. I choose to be amused. You also contradict yourself and I would think you had more integrity if you tried to help me understand what you mean, as it could be a language problem instead of flipping out. So, I don't bother fishing up examples you could easily find on your own if you were not so full of yourself. Still, I often agree with you.

Oh I get pissed when someone is simply an ignorant ass! And even more pissed if I get accused of something which I`m not!

I dont think there is any language problem, since others perfectly seem to understand what I am talking about. And when I do express myself in an ununderstandable way, most people here have the courtesy to point my mistakes out to me. Actualy, I think everyone here when confronted with contradictions is ready to point these out! You eighter regress into this kind of behavior when not capable of delivering any argument.
Or you simply like to annoy people!

---

(December 18, 2012 at 10:07 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Here are ten items, to start with. For brevity's sake, assume that any mention of firearms involves those designed to discharge ammo or shot of sufficient size and/or with sufficient force to be lethal. So, I'm not talking about pellet or BB guns.

1. All firearms regardless of size, shape or purpose should be registered with authorities. This registration should be renewed on a regular basis.

agreed.

Quote:2. All transactions involving firearms, even if no money is exchanged, must be reported to authorities by all involved parties within 24 hours of the transaction.

agreed

Quote:3. Magazines should be limited to carry no more than six rounds.

nope, how the product is used should be the buisniss of the owner, unless he plans to commit a crime.

Quote:4. All firearms which are designed to fire in full automatic or burst automatic should be completely banned. Modifying an existing firearm to give it either capability should be a class-D felony.

nope, I think fully automatic aswell as semi automatic rifles should be available.

Quote:5. Knowingly possessing any unregistered firearm should be a class-E felony. The sale or transfer of an unregistered firearm should be a class-D felony.

agreed.

Quote:6. No more than one firearm of any variety may be possessed by all persons living in a household. Registered hunters may possess a second, which cannot be a handgun.

Disagree. A person who is able to purchase fire arms should be able to buy as many as he can afford.

Unless this purson is planning to commit criminal offences with those weapons - like illegaly selling them, arming a criminal organisation, smuggling them into foreign countries and other....

Also I think that the arming of paramilitary political organisations aswell as the arming and formation of political militias should be forbidden.

Quote:7. No firearms may be carried concealed in public places under any circumstances.

agreed, except for the "under any circumstances" part, and the wordconceiled should be better defined. Some would define a gun in the trunk of a car as "conceiled".

Quote:8. Conviction of any violent offense should bar a person from possessing firearms permanently, unless the conviction is overturned.

Agreed.

Quote:9. In order to qualify for a firearms license, one must pass a mandated firearms safety training program annually.

Agreed. May I add, that people should also be required to go through a psycological test, and that futur health problems should be reported to the authorities by the doctors aswell as possible futur criminal offences - after which authorities should have the right to confiscate the firearms.

Quote:10. All firearms must be stored in a locked, stationary safe in the home (not in a shed or auxiliary building) when not in use. The safe must be registered with authorities. Unless specifically being transported, firearms may not be stored in vehicles for any reason. The owner is responsible for making sure the firearms are secure.

Well our laws here in Germany say that the owner is comitted to storing a firearm safely - question is - how to check that? - it would be a violation of an individuals legal rights to search his or her house simply for the purpose of making sure that guns are safely stored.

And I think individuals should be free to transport firearms in their cars.

Quote:The second amendment gives you the right to own firearms, but that right should not be without significant limits. It should not be easy or cheap, as it is now. The question every person should ask themselves before purchasing a weapon is "how much do I really need this"?

That is a question which the individual should ask him or herself and also answere for him or herself. It is not the job of the goverment to answere that question when there are no facts which show that there is reason for the goverment to intervene due to restore public safety.

Oh, really, Germans? This came up because not one, but two people were like, "What the fuck is he talking about?" Blah, blah, fuck you, blah, blah ignorant ass, blah, blah, do all my reading for me. *Hulk smash* Strange and funny dude. Anyway, I'm done poking you with a stick. Until next time.

(December 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm done poking you with a stick. Until next time.

This is you, throughout this thread, finaly realising what you are actualy doing:

HAHAHAHA! That video was absolutely brilliant!