tyjet3 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 And your idea about not selling bullets. Do you mean to assault weapons or to all firearms? If you mean to all firearms, its unconstitutional. If you mean to assault weapons, then its a lost cause because malcontenders can still get the projectiles on the black market. I mean just the assault weapons. Well if the black market is such a problem, why ban anything?!?! Everything is a lost cause if you bring up the blackmarket. The bullet law would only work for those who abide by the law... Any one not following the laws can't be controlled by them so what is your point? Plus with the money saved on bullet production, we could crack down on the black market more!! well, maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_it_ Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 well bullets are made when you controll the manufacturerer (global scale now) and to whom the deliver you can registrer everything (except the home made toys) and that would lead in a decrease of blackmarket sales because they now rely more on home makers then on factory's and stolen ware since all bullets get a id Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 If "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", why shouldn't I be allowed to purchase .50 caliber machine guns, heavy artillery, tanks, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 18, 2004 Author Share Posted September 18, 2004 If "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", why shouldn't I be allowed to purchase .50 caliber machine guns, heavy artillery, tanks, etc? You should. Assuming of course you can pass the required safety training (so you don't accidentally kill someone), you buy a few hundred square miles of land to use as your firing range (if you want to use that artillery and not just display it), pass the background checks, and register it with the government. And of course assuming that you have both the money to pay for what you want (no small factor when you're talking about multi-million dollar weapons) and someone to sell it to you (right to own =/= right to have a willing seller). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Doesn't the idea of a private citizen owning a tank scare you? Imagine some disgruntled person driving through a town wreaking havoc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted September 18, 2004 Author Share Posted September 18, 2004 How is that different from the way it is now? That person just walks into (insert location of hated targets) with a pistol and kills a few. Actually, there's probably more dead that way than with the tank. Anyway, do you honestly think someone is going to get their revenge by paying millions of dollars for a tank? Along with taking all the training to get their tank license, registering their tank with the police, passing a background check for any criminal convictions or criminal intent, and finding someone with a tank for sale. I'd bet more on getting struck by lightning than dying by some private citizen's tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 An average of 67 people each year are killed by lightning strikes and about 1000 are injured. That would be scary as hell if that many people died or were injured each year from civilian owned tanks. Sorry, I couldn't resist ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Yeah, and since most people die in bed we all should be scared to go to bed, right? And since more people die in traffic accidents then in planes, plane travel should be considered to be much safer than travel by car. And since safety is more important than environmental pollution, let's all travel by plane. Sorry, I couldn't resist either. In the end you can almost prove anything with statistics. That is why I don't listen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalSnafu Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Well, travelling by air is safer...and it's better for the enviroment too. If only we had more airports ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 once again, with the tank... let them buy it but they can't shoot anything with out military personal there to supervise... look i helped with gun control and came up with new jobs!! i'm on a roll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.