Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 25. (Read 36627 times)

You really like to argue this silly and utterly pointless point. Let's consider:

1. Temperatures dropping below 0 degrees Celsius seem to correlate with water turning into ice.

2. Loch Ness monster sightings increase as the hemlines of skirts get higher.

By way of hypothetical example, Rassah trots out an example like number two, claims correlation does not equate to causation, and tries to use it to dispute the conclusion that water turning into ice is the result of lower temperatures.

Your arguments are pointless. Everywhere.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

You can't kill someone in someone else's name. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Saying it's in some random guy's name is bs, and no one else is responsible but you.


Statistics also say less pirates = higher global temperatures. That's a fact. Back when we had lots of pirates, temperatures were way lower. As the number of pirates went down, global temperatures went up. Way up. More recently, in the 2000's, the rise in temperatures leveled off a bit, at the same time that Somali pirates started up their activity. During the last two or three years, US really cracked down on piracy in Somalia, killing a bunch of them, and we also had the two hottest years on record.

This is false.

There is an interesting commonality between those anti-gun types and those who use firearms to commit horrible acts, both would force their views on others.

Meanwhile most people owning or not owning firearms have no interest in forcing their views on anyone...

The Federal government is completely out of control of the citizens of the US.  They are bought and paid for by the special interests of the world, namely the large corporations and "military industrial complex". 


Actually it is not.  Any one person trying to take on the Federal government will lose.  Only if the government makes the first strike will the people band together and overturn the tyrannical out of control parasite that it is.  Re-read what happened with the "revolutionary war".  The only difference is today's government is completely way beyond what England was doing at the time. 


This has been dis-proven time and time again here.  Why do you keep repeating it?


Here we go with the labeling again.  When your "facts" fall apart, you resort to labeling those who oppose your viewpoint. 

The world is full of sick and mentally depraved individuals.  Some are that way because of drugs (illegal or prescribed).  Some are that way because of religious hysteria.  Some are that way because they are power freaks and desire to manipulate and control others.  Some are that way because of their military "training".  ALL of those have ready access to "deadly weapons", whether they are illegal or not.  Yet you want those law abiding citizens who don't fall into any of those categories to disarm themselves and make themselves ready victims to the others?  That's a very weird and odd position to take. 

M

You see how Mike just said that they are poor kids who were drugged and brainwashed, meaning that they are not 'the bad guys' - he implied the bad guys are on higher positions, which is a fair point.

On the contrary you can bet that for the family of the Reuters reporter murdered in that video those US soldiers are indeed the bad guys that should be taken out.  So... If they are indeed "the bad guys" also for you and Americans in general, why don't your armed friends go and use their freedom-tools against the US military preventing the killings their neighbours are commiting abroad?

Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?

Maybe because you know you do not have any chance against the military, and that's just the way it is?

As you see the point of firearms protecting citizens against the Government is ludicrous (a point I read a lot here), especially taking into consideration we are speaking about the US, which Government (and army) supports the interests of the people ruling the world.

And if you know you do not stand a chance against the people ruling the world, maybe you just want your guns to be safe in case a random criminal/psycho tries to kill you. Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less violent crime, which leads to a less violent society as a whole.

This cult to the idea that individuals have the "God given" right to carry firearms is disturbing and sick.

The world is fucked up - lets try not to fuck it up even more by adding more and more deadly weapons to it.

Drones bombing civilians helps to create a terrorist from an otherwise docile citizen as they lose their family members from bombs falling overhead
Makes sense to me

You keep saying that, but I'm just not seeing that anywhere. I'm pretty sure everyone, including Americans, see those guys as the "bad guys."

Considering US soldiers are murdering hunderds of thousands of innocent people all over the world, what would you consider them - good or bad "guys"

I make this point because when I said that I don't believe in "good" or "bad" guys (I just believe in "guys" that do bad or good things at some points of their lives) I was mocked by pretty much every one on this thread. And here you have the example of how people who is murdering women and children and bombing countries to the stone age, sometimes enjoying what they are seeing, are justified by you - and I'm sure they are justified by their families and community.

Or maybe we have the good guys, the bad guys, and the US soldiers on the "collateral murder" video, which do not fall in any one of the former categories?

People do both evil and good things, but living in a culture that feeds on fear, while considers firearms "freedom tools" and nice toys, do not help at all.

That has nothing to do with anything, you've clearly not read about the training soldiers undergo to resist interrogation for instance.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" was not a documentary. 

Why would U.S soldiers need drugs to reduce empathy when all soldiers ( not just the U.S ) willingly submit themselves to training programs that are designed to do that? It's the Taliban that use drugs on their soldiers and for once the army isn't just making that shit up to scare us because a huge percentage of the worlds drug market comes from Afghanistan.

Speaking as someone who has/had soldiers in my family, WTF are you talking about?

But it's not a conscription, they chose their way, let them pay for it.

That's probably because US soldiers are forced to take drugs to reduce any feelings of empathy, they seen like callous pricks but they're being screwed over and it only gets worse when they get out - they suffer from withdrawals, suicide rate of 22 / day, their assets being taken away, 40% of homeless are veterans - not to mention every war they fight is based on a lie.

I agree the rules and methods for correcting database errors and 'getting your rights back' are terrible and are no where explained accurately.  Basically the NCIS appeal method is a joke.  Want to get a set of your own personal information from the FBI database?  Good luck on that, it takes a certified set of fingerprints then six months before they cough it up.

One simple change to the law which would likely provide the greatest benefit would be to toss out the rule that someone convicted of just possession of one or another drug is barred from purchasing guns.  Generally this implies felony convictions, but there is a rule in the federal law that brings in a number of misdemeanors.  Something like "a misdemeanor which allows imprisonment for one year or longer".

Would not surprise me if three fourths or more of those disallowed were for simple drug possession.

Yep, and then people who have never been convicted of a crime (and in the cases of malicious persecution, never even had enough evidence against them to meet the probable cause requirement) have to spend thousands if not tens of thousands more dollars (other than their primary defense) on legal fees to obtain findings of factual innocence, arrest record expungement, and STILL there's no guarantee that 100% of those dollars will not go to waste, because the government "messed up" (and yet no government official is ever penalized and forced to pay the citizen back). Cost-prohibiting the poor out of their right to self-defense, and too often into premature graves.

One state that I know of is required to produce an audit report on the number of errors in the database they submit to the fed for NCIS.  The law they wrote to comply with the Brady bill back in the clinton years requires that audit.  The minimum acceptable quality level is 95% (5% errors).  So I looked one of the audit reports up.  Just for fun.

The error rate was 70%.

Basically, lots of DAs arrest people, charge them, then drop the cases for various reasons.  But they don't get around to backing out the felony charges.  That means in effect these guys walk around and both a background check to a commercial database, or check via an aggregating database such as NCIS, will say they have felony charges. 

Note that this does not mean that 70% of those from that state will be denied when they apply through NCIS but that of those who have a refusal for gun purchases from that state, 70% will be in error.

Now how about that?

I don't, and "certainly imperfect" is an understatement. Background checks can, and have been used to delay and deny sane, law-abiding adults their right to self-defense. Waiting periods, investigation periods, "system crashes", putting common NAMES on the terror watchlist, putting peaceful dissidents on the terror watchlist, the intrinsic registration of all law-abiding gun owners for future confiscation and history-repeating genocide (do you believe for one second that the system operates purely on RAM and cannot save anything anywhere?)

Background checks are prior restraint, and unconscionable. Criminals do not a) have to wait b) get background checks (and even if they do choose to play the background checked market, somehow, a not-insignificant amount "slip through the cracks" and pass the checks and commit violent crime, so much that it gives "gun control" criminals "justification" for the prohibition of all legal gun ownership.)

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

Granted, but that was a fairly astute observation. 

But the 'why' of people being one way or another does not really matter to those who must guard against threats, does it?  It is what it is...

Be that as it may I think most people are capable of assessing levels of danger of armed robbery, assault, murder and rape in the areas they live in, and I think they are capable of getting protection against what threats they perceive as realistic.

I trust most people to do a decent - admittedly imperfect - job of things like this.

I do not trust government agencies do to such a job for them.  I do trust government agencies to do an acceptable - certainly imperfect - job of things like background checks for firearms.