SpaceSimCentral

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin-"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "-Thomas Jefferson- "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington-"The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."-Adolph Hitler-"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."-Thomas Jefferson-"Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession."-George Washington-

I'll never understand how they don't see the pointlessness and even the danger in outlawing guns. There isn't a single criminal out there who will decide not to obtain a gun because of any laws on the books. That said I got no issues with gun registration/licensing/background checks. Don't quote me but I believe the NRA would like to do away with those and on that issue I part ways with them.

Shant wrote:
That said I got no issues with gun registration/licensing/background checks. Don't quote me but I believe the NRA would like to do away with those and on that issue I part ways with them.
Sorry.. but you are confused as to the nature of "registration", "licensing" and other forms of regulation. When you "register" something you are legally giving control and ownership over to another party... also, when you "license" something, you are asking permission to use something or engage in an activity. An owner is someone who has sovereignty over a given object or activity. Subjects must register the possession of property and get permission through licensing to use it.So registration and licensing are the very antithesis of ownership.

Shant wrote:
I'll never understand how they don't see the pointlessness and even the danger in outlawing guns.
Agreed. Furthermore it is a right (rather than a "privilege") in the US. The country's founders thought it was the second-most important thing, after freedom of speech -- the right to bear arms. The way I see it, a fundamental right means that a person can do it without limitation. Didn't we fight the American Revolution with a bunch of farmer-owned squirrel rifles?That said, some states have come up with reasonable compromises on the issue. While they support the right to own most kinds of arms, they require registration for concealable, silent, and fully automatic (machine gun) weapons. They also have laws about the ways that arms can be used, which seem mostly OK.At the large end of the scale, Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO and "the other billionaire") was not allowed to import a MIG-29..."It's considered a firearm," said Ellison, incredulously, "even though that's not my intention. It is disarmed, but theoretically you could rearm it and take out a couple of cities."I wonder where he would have to go to buy replacement missiles for that thing? They probably license those things, too.

Without the ability to defend ourselves, we are nothing but slaves.I am absolutely pro gun. I'm realistic to say that you'll always have your loonies, sadly, but a responsible armed populace can respond to the loonies if they have armament of their own. The loonies, in theory, will always get their hands on something so it's best for the responsible populace to have their own tools of defense so that they don't have to wait for the police (or rely on them).I really foresee an economic crash next year, which will most likely lead to the fabled "Race War" (sadly).

I think there would be civil unrest if USA ever passed a no gun law. I would like to see the government enforce that law or go house to house collecting them up. I know I wouldn't want that job :)As long as your a law biding citizen you should be able to own a gun without any issue. I do believe there should be background checks and certain weapons shouldn't be for sale.UN is a worthless entity and is very corrupt.

I believe armor piercing rounds oughta be outlawed as well. Not sure I want the general public to have access to fully automatic assault rifles either. But yeah, on the whole I agree with the consensus. Guns are as much a right as speech. It's in the constitution, that oughta be the end of story.

Shant wrote:
I believe armor piercing rounds oughta be outlawed as well. Not sure I want the general public to have access to fully automatic assault rifles either. But yeah, on the whole I agree with the consensus. Guns are as much a right as speech. It's in the constitution, that oughta be the end of story.
Actually I think that the "general public" should have access to the same firearms and ammunition as the government and "criminals".This notion that someone in the legislature can pass a "law" and "restrict" access for "criminals" is patently ignorant and illogical. The only people it restricts access to are the general public who are law-abiding and need to be able to be armed the same as "criminals" that don't follow "laws" anyway.Any semi-automatic firearm can be made fully auto with a few modifications, so banning "fully automatic" firearms doesn't make any sense either. The point of the 2nd amendment is so that the general population can defend itself against criminals and tyrannical governments. If the general population isn't "allowed" to possess the same firearms as the "criminals" and the "tyrannical" government then there is little use for a 2nd amendment.

Shingen wrote:
The point of the 2nd amendment is so that the general population can defend itself against criminals and tyrannical governments. If the general population isn't "allowed" to possess the same firearms as the "criminals" and the "tyrannical" government then there is little use for a 2nd amendment.
Yeah... the "tyrannical government" part was fresh in their minds when they wrote it.I don't think that I ever thought about it exactly that way, in spite of having heard most of these arguments, on both sides, many times.You're right. And the NRA is right. Screw registration... I'm gonna move to a state where I can pack a sidearm like all those famous cowboys (and Captain Mal of the Firefly-class freighter, Serenity). Texas, here I come!

Darkone wrote:
I think there would be civil unrest if USA ever passed a no gun law. I would like to see the government enforce that law or go house to house collecting them up. I know I wouldn't want that job :)As long as your a law biding citizen you should be able to own a gun without any issue. I do believe there should be background checks and certain weapons shouldn't be for sale.UN is a worthless entity and is very corrupt.
I agree that law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms. I also agree that the UN is pretty much worthless and corrupt. It's funny that certain organizations that claim to be anti-Nazi and such turn out to have the potential to be much worse (I guess like Chancellor Palpatine in the prequels; trying to keep it Sci-Fi due to the content of this board lol).I believe that the gov't could succeed going house to house. Some of the people that say "over my dead body" will be the first to throw their guns out when they actually see dead bodies. History has shown this. I'd also advise people to read "The Turner Diaries" or "Civil War Two" by Thomas Chittum.

ViolentAJ wrote:
I believe that the gov't could succeed going house to house. Some of the people that say "over my dead body" will be the first to throw their guns out when they actually see dead bodies. History has shown this.
The moment we reach this point in the USA ViolentAJ is time to become a resident of another country because what the country was founded on will be no more. Anarchy will probably happen and of course the government to help deter it will instate marshall law on the citizens. Hehe nothing like doom and gloom on New Years

Darkone wrote:
Anarchy will probably happen and of course the government to help deter it will instate marshall law on the citizens. Hehe nothing like doom and gloom on New Years
Anarchy might not be a bad idea... after all anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness and perpetual violence, it simply means a society without a centralized government. Think about it. What good is a small group of individuals who claim the moral authority to monopolize violence, theft and fraud for the "protection" of society? Can't people just govern themselves locally?

Shingen wrote:
Actually I think that the "general public" should have access to the same firearms and ammunition as the government and "criminals".
In general I agree, and on paper that sounds fine. But where do you draw the line? RPGs? How about a stinger missile? And for that matter, why not a tank if you can afford it? No matter how close one sticks to his/her ideals, you can't leave out at least a little bit of space for practicality.
Quote:
This notion that someone in the legislature can pass a "law" and "restrict" access for "criminals" is patently ignorant and illogical. The only people it restricts access to are the general public who are law-abiding and need to be able to be armed the same as "criminals" that don't follow "laws" anyway.
I agree with this as a general rule, I said as much in an earlier post. I guess we differ on borders. It seems to me that it's not impossible to prevent the more extreme weapons from getting in the hands of both the lawful and criminal element. If determined enough, yes, a certain percentage of criminals with the means and resources will be able to get their hands on fully automatic machine guns with armor piercing rounds. It just makes more sense to me that you try to make it harder for them, rather than go to the other extreme and just let anybody buy them anytime they want, no restrictions or background checks.

Shant wrote:
In general I agree, and on paper that sounds fine. But where do you draw the line? RPGs? How about a stinger missile? And for that matter, why not a tank if you can afford it? No matter how close one sticks to his/her ideals, you can't leave out at least a little bit of space for practicality.
So what's wrong with that? Do you think that society is going to break down because some private citizen owns a tank or an RPG? Guess what? Thousands of private citzens in this country own heavy weapons and they all aren't alCIAda terrorists.I'm always amazed that people allow things like fluoride to be put in their water, aspartame to be put in their soft-drinks and processed foods, and mercury to be put in their vaccines but somehow these people are worried about whether the guy across the street has an AK.Weird times we live in.

...

Shant wrote:
In general I agree, and on paper that sounds fine. But where do you draw the line? RPGs? How about a stinger missile? And for that matter, why not a tank if you can afford it? No matter how close one sticks to his/her ideals, you can't leave out at least a little bit of space for practicality.
So what's wrong with that? Do you think that society is going to break down because some private citizen owns a tank or an RPG? Guess what? Thousands of private citzens in this country own heavy weapons and they all aren't alCIAda terrorists.I'm always amazed that people allow things like fluoride to be put in their water, aspartame to be put in their soft-drinks and processed foods, and mercury to be put in their vaccines but somehow these people are worried about whether the guy across the street has an AK and is growing a stalk of herb.Weird times we live in.

My whole thought on privately held arms is that as long as your a law biding citizen you should be able to own whatever you want. But the moment you break some laws or diagnosed with some mental disorder that some of those gun freedoms will be in question for you depending on what you own.I look at this way. If your country is wanting to take your guns away, then they must be doing something that would displease the population and fear repercussions

Shingen wrote:
I'm always amazed that people allow things like fluoride to be put in their water, aspartame to be put in their soft-drinks and processed foods, and mercury to be put in their vaccines but somehow these people are worried about whether the guy across the street has an AK and is growing a stalk of herb.
Fortunately I don't have to worry about my psychologically troubled friend Jerry who lives down the street from getting his hands on a tank, because it's illegal. And believe me, our quiet street is better for it.

Shant wrote:
Fortunately I don't have to worry about my psychologically troubled friend Jerry who lives down the street from getting his hands on a tank, because it's illegal. And believe me, our quiet street is better for it.
yep.. the only thing you have to worry about is if Jerry gets a job with the local Sheriff's dept., ATF, DEA, or FBI.

Yeah you're right about that! If he ever got past their psych profile screening...watch out world. Jerry's got a badge.