Syco21

You don't need a new law for that, either. Get a court order.

You're confusing ability with right. Just because someone has the ability to do something, doesn't mean they have a right to do it. Sure I have the ability to knock on my neighbor's door and shoot them in the face, but I do not have the right. That is not my freedom of expression, no matter how much I may scream that I am merely expressing my dislike for them. Likewise, you do not have a right to attack me. That is why it is illegal. When something is illegal, the law is stating you do not have a right to do that. So your answer to laws that go unenforced is to make more things illegal? If the laws on the book aren't already enforced, what makes you think new ones will be? If laws aren't enforced, then lobby for them to be enforced. If the laws are unenforceable because it's too hard to track down the perpetrator, new laws aren't going to change that. New laws will not change that. The US government only extradites pirates because big businesses demand it. It sucks, but if you ain't got money, the government isn't too keen on helping you.

This is already a crime. As for your little speech about consequences. You're basically saying you have the freedom to say what you want, unless it's something I don't like.

Racism, with a few exceptions, ain't illegal in the US and I'd like to keep it that way.

He never should have been arrested, he shouldn't be forced to do anything. His comment, while insensitive, should not be criminalized. As for the topic at had. Things that should be illegal, already are illegal. There's no need for new laws, all they will achieve is the restriction of our human rights.

So his comment is evidence that he should be imprisoned?

Are you talking about the boy that said "you let your father down" or something else I missed?

I think I've said it already in this thread, but I'll go ahead and say it again: Crime has been on the decline in America for over a decade now. That includes violent crimes such as murder. http://www.bloomberg...hs-decline.html During the same period, the Assault Weapons Ban expired and both gun ownership and gun rights have skyrocketed. Hell, during the 2008 election and the months/year immediately following, ammo sales were up so much that ammo was sold just about everywhere. You're right that not many people purchase automatic weapons. But that's because they all cost more than a car and require an extremely lengthy application process. If you're saying that the American military would fire on American citizens, think again. In the event of an armed rebellion, many of our armed forces would either do nothing or join the rebels. The Aurora shooter didn't use an automatic weapon. And if you tried to take the automatic weapons away from those that already own them, most would rebel and fire upon the people attempting to confiscate them. Let's not forget the demographic of those who own these types of weapons. A lot of them belong to militias and are hardcore gun-rights advocates. The people that give up their guns, atleast those in the US, tend to be people that have inherited or were given the guns from someone else. I disagree. Assault rifles, you know the actual full auto weapons, are used for suppression fire. They're designed for assault, when someone needs to lay down suppression fire while the other assaults a position. Hence the term assault rifle. When shooting 'bad guys' soldiers will, more often than not, use either single or burst fire because it's more accurate and effective than full auto, which again is used for suppression fire.

Our government is already evil. Right now Congress is comptemplating charging New York Times journalists under the espionage act for revealing their illegal activities. https://www.eff.org/...secute-new-york Fast & Furious was used by Congress as reasons why we should have stricter gun control. Op. F&F was an ATF operation that illegally armed drug gangs in Mexico and cost many people their lives, including some American border patrol agents. To this day, the Obama administration is still trying to cover it up. http://thehill.com/b...ricter-gun-laws You think our governments aren't evil? You think we get to pick who we want to run for president? Try telling that to Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_LWRc5dRM8 America might be stable at the moment, but things are very tense and the tension is only rising. To say that there is never going to be an armed rebellion in America is simply to wave your ignorance of American politics around. You think people are happy with the current political structure of the nation? We're not. There's a lot of people that are fed up with the two party system and are starting to see that the Democrats aren't any different than the Republicans and vice versa. They're wanting third party candidates. But they have been denied this election. From the rampant fraud in the GOP conventions to the fraud of last year's election. If there is an armed rebellion in America, and I honestly hope there isn't, it will definitely happen within my lifetime. It wont start as an armed rebellion, it'll start out as widespread turmoil and progress from there.

Honestly, debates like these have shaped my opinions greatly. They bring new information and viewpoints. While you may not see it and you most certainly wont see in the immediate discussions, I reflect on what is said, investigate new information and adjust my stances accordingly. Over the years, I've gone from pro-gun control to anti-gun control, hardcore fundamentalist Christian to atheist. I'm going to stop right there, I described myself as an atheist just now, but generally I don't like the label. I don't hold atheists in that high of a regard. I tend to view myself as more neutral in the debate. Anyway, other stances that have changed are I used to be anti-socialized medicine. But now I see it's merits. I used to be anti-drugs, now I'm more neutral to the debate, though I am pro-marijuana, still not a user and have no plans to start using. These are just some of the things that changed for me. I know I tend to appear unshakeable in my arguments, but truth is, I do listen to the otherside's arguments and consider their position.

Better a fighting chance than a sitting duck.

I didn't have to rape children to acquire my compounds, nor did the manufacturer. No crimes were committed in the manufacturing, distribution, sale or possession of my compounds. The only crime would crime would be if I mixed the components and then stored them. They don't compare to child porn. As for drugs, drugs should be legal not unlike alcohol. This is coming from someone that hates hippies and drug addicts. :laugh: But I also hate alcoholics. Still, I wouldn't support another prohibition on alcohol. Likewise, I don't support prohibition on drugs. It has cost us entirely way too much. Monetarily, the price has been through the roof. In terms of rights, we have lost many to the so called war on drugs. Despite these huge costs, it has only been effective at creating crime.

I don't know anything about this, other than what little has been said here. I don't like sports, I don't watch sports and I especially do not pay attention to sports news. So meh. I'll say this, though, erasing the wins or whatever it is they're doing, seems a bit rash.

You stated that regulation is a good thing and that having a gun collection doesn't make sense. This infers that you believe people shouldn't be allowed to have gun collections, unless they're antiques. But I'm saying it don't matter if you think it doesn't make sense. Find me a hobbyist and I'll find you a doesn't people that think that hobby is silly. Find me a collector of anything, and I'll likewise find you a dozen people that thinks his collection doesn't make any sense. You don't need to understand it, it doesn't have to make sense to anyone. No one has any need to justify their collection of anything to anyone, so long as that collection isn't directly harming a third party. There is no strawman, just because guns are different than alcohol or video games, doesn't mean the comparison doesn't stand. Personally, I'd never refer to alcohol as a 'toy,' it most certainly is not.

Exactly, why should you? I have one pound of binary explosives(unmixed) sitting on my desk right now. It's perfectly legal. Should I justify my possession of them? I'm thinking no. Even when explosives were legal for civilian purchase(believe it or not, not that long ago you could buy all the dynamite you could afford at your local hardware store), people didn't go around blowing each other up. Sure their might have been an incident or two where that happened. But hey, guess what? Timothy McVeigh managed to blow up an entire building, despite high grade explosives being illegal. http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/images/smilies/eusa_shhh.gif For those of you arguing that AR-15 type rifles have no 'practical' use in day to day lives, so they should be banned because in rare occasions they are used for evil. Guess what! In rare occasions, that aren't as rare as mass shootings, they're very useful in self defense. For example, Asian shops owners in LA used AR-15 to defend themselves and their businesses from thieves and looters when the police refused to do so. In New Orleans, during Katrina. While the police went around shooting people for being the wrong color, various neighborhoods team up and used AR-15s to patrol their area and protect themselves from the criminal element active in the area at that time. Disasters are rare, but still happen far more frequently than do mass shootings. Last year, when the Bastrop County Complex Fire broke out, thousands of families were evacuated from their homes. While many of those homes were largely safe from the fires, it was still dangerous, the winds could have shifted at any moment and emergency crews needed easy access to the immediate area. This meant that huge portions of neighborhoods were off limits to anyone other than emergency crews. This made it prime pickin for looters. I believe that some individuals went back with their rifles, snuck in and defended their property. I know for a fact this was the case for at least one pecan orchard. Only difference is they refused to leave in the first place. Rather, they stayed behind, used their irrigation system to fight the fires and rifles to protect their property. I don't know that they had any issues with looters, or attempted looting. I never asked. The point is, just because the majority use of AR-15 platforms is plinking, doesn't mean there isn't a time and place when they are the most appropriate weapons for home and self defense.

Or, ya know, you split logs for a living or as a hobby. Kinda like the alcohol collection makes no sense whatsoever. Why do people buy dozens of bottles of whine if they'll probably never drink them all? Why do people have massive gaming collections? Not everyone plays every game they own. I personally I have a sealed copy of MGS4 that I've had for about 2 years not. It's not sealed because it's a collector's item. It's sealed because I haven't bothered to play it yet. Doesn't make sense, does it? But ya know, gaming is one of my hobbies. Why should I justify my hobbies to you? :whistling:

When I have a right to something, I do not have to justify my exercise of that right. If you want to take that right away from me, you must justify that desire and you must prove that I am an immediate threat to the well being of the public at large by exercising that right. Also, I'd like to state that HeyYou probably doesn't really have any assault rifles. I mean it's a possibility, but it's not likely. To purchase an assault rifle, one must apply to the ATF and pay a $200 tax stamp. They then must wait 6 months or more for the ATF to approve their purchase. Then they are permitted to purchase only the assault rifle they paid the tax filled out the application for. These rifles will be atleast 26 years old, most will be older. To top it off, the rifle will cost him around $30,000. This is not an assault rifle.

What very few people realize is that the part of many state constitutions which allows the government to regulate carrying of weapons are actually a part of Jim Crow laws. They were added during the reconstruction period specifically to enable the states to make it illegal for colored men to carry weapons. A lot of the bans on carry were enacted to keep colored men from carrying, while bringing the laws into line with civil rights. Funny statement, that. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.png "Several thousand rounds" sounds like an average range day for me. Do you have any idea how quickly you can burn through a thousand rounds while just practicing? Nevermind plinking, which is more about just wasting ammo for fun rather than actually practicing your marksmanship.

Best not make any assumptions, you have a proven track record of being horribly incorrect. Well? Post a picture of yourself holding a gun too. Then I'll be twice as intimidated. Better yet, print out my avatar and use it as target practice. Because bullets can travel through the intertubes! :laugh:

You took a picture of yourself holding a gun in front of one of my posts? Wow, there's some good subtext. Best not make any assumptions, you have a proven track record of being horribly incorrect. :rolleyes: He is incorrect because he disagrees with you a lot. Okay. Yeah, clearly he was correct in stating that I was claiming my right to own guns as a free white man. Cause, ya know, as a Hispanic man, I'm totally white. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

You took a picture of yourself holding a gun in front of one of my posts? Wow, there's some good subtext. Best not make any assumptions, you have a proven track record of being horribly incorrect. :rolleyes:

Hmm, I don't recall saying this. Wonder why? http://i.imgur.com/NmHJp.jpg

Say what now? http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

In regards to suicide: Latest stats I could find are from 2008, there were nearly 37,000 suicides, of which around 18,500 were by gun. From the CDC for 2008 Mortality All homicides Number of deaths: 16,799Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5Cause of death rank: 15 Firearm homicides Number of deaths: 11,493Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm I guarantee you that murder has not jumped 10 fold in the last four years. In fact, murder has been on the decline.:thumbsup:

100,000 people? I've seen that statistic before, laughed my ass off at it and ignored it thinking that it was just some bottom feeder getting all hysterical. There's not even a quarter of that number in homicides, and only 11k by gun. Go ahead, Jason Alexander, run your ignorant mouth. You make wildly inaccurate statements like that, people will just ignore you. People will call you out on your BS and it will harm the gun control cause. I thank you for your service. :laugh: