Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gun control

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415>
Author
Zesty View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out

Joined: 05 October 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6050
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zesty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:26pm
Originally posted by 636andy636 636andy636 wrote:

Originally posted by Zesty Zesty wrote:

I was joking by the Canada comment, BTW.

Personally, the gun laws are one of the few things I seem to not like about Canada.

I'm into airguns as well, and as I understand it you can't get a BB/pellet gun with a muzzle velocity of over 495fps without getting a license for firearms!

that's whack.



true. but that does not stop people from ordering USA spec parts to make a detuned pellet gun into one that shoots over 500 fps. if it looks stock and you have the manual if say a ranger stops you, your fine aslong as he does not have a chronograph. usualy them seeing in the manual that its sub 500 fps your fine

im into airguning aswell. i will soon have a semi auto pistol. the first 2 guns will have to be registered and i will need a PAL or FAC to possess them. one will be 670 fps the outher will be close to 700 fps and there both in .22



My Airguns (yes i know my carpet is pink. all the rooms carpets are pink.


Oh, I feel you. I hear of those crazy Canadians doing that all the time, but it's illegal nonetheless. I really would feel stupid getting busted with an airgun!

Those are some nice guns....what is the Chinese break-barrel? I have a B/18 that kinda looks like that.

I didn't even notice the carpet!
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:26pm

EDIT - responding to Traveler

 

Certainly - there are restrictions on all rights.  And all of those restrictions are, and should be, resisted/considered and only implemented if necessary.

 



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:33pm
[QUOTE=pb125]

Canada seems fine without guns.

-me

[/QUOTE

You would think so, but in the provinces bordering the prairie states of the US, the rate of gun violence is actually higher in Canada.

 

For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:36pm
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

My statistics are accurate, according to the USJD ... ... ...

 

Im am not saying that your stats are false.  I am saying that they are incorrectly applied, and incompletely presented.

Correlation is not causation.  You note that gun violence went down in the 90s - maybe it was due to the Brady Bill?  Maybe due to the AWB?  Maybe because the economy was good?  Maybe because miniskirts were in?  You always have to consider outside variables.

You note that states with tight gun laws have high gun crime.  Why do you think that the laws cause the crime?  Maybe places with gun crime are more motivated to enact gun laws?  The causation arrow doesn't always lead where you think.

Then, of course, there is counter-evidence.  You don't mention Scandinavia and Japan, for instance, where there are tight gun laws and very little crime - gun or otherwise.  You don't mention parts of Africa and the Middle East (and other parts of the world), where there are few gun laws and lots of crime.  Heck, you didn't even note the obvious comparison - Canada.

Like I said: statistics-abuse.



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Well, let me clarify anyway.  What I mean by "wishful interpretation" is when people confuse what the law IS with what they WISH the law was.

Example:

Wishful thought:  "The First Amendment does not provide for the separation of church and state"

Reality:  The US Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does in fact create a wall of separation. 

The law is clear - people pretend it isn't because they don't like it. 

  In the past, the supreme court has also ruled slavery constitutional. People didn't like it, but what the hey, the law was clear.

For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

My statistics are accurate, according to the USJD ... ... ...

 

Im am not saying that your stats are false.  I am saying that they are incorrectly applied, and incompletely presented.

Correlation is not causation.  You note that gun violence went down in the 90s - maybe it was due to the Brady Bill?  Maybe due to the AWB?  Maybe because the economy was good?  Maybe because miniskirts were in?  You always have to consider outside variables.

You note that states with tight gun laws have high gun crime.  Why do you think that the laws cause the crime?  Maybe places with gun crime are more motivated to enact gun laws?  The causation arrow doesn't always lead where you think.

Then, of course, there is counter-evidence.  You don't mention Scandinavia and Japan, for instance, where there are tight gun laws and very little crime - gun or otherwise.  You don't mention parts of Africa and the Middle East (and other parts of the world), where there are few gun laws and lots of crime.  Heck, you didn't even note the obvious comparison - Canada.

Like I said: statistics-abuse.

Strangely enough, as I was doing my research, I was surprised to find that Japan has seen a very large increase in gun related crime in recent years. As for Canada, as I said in another post, the Canadian provinces bordering the prairie states of the US have a higher percentage of gun related crime.

For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:47pm

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

  In the past, the supreme court has also ruled slavery constitutional. People didn't like it, but what the hey, the law was clear.

Yep, the law was clear, and they changed the law - hence the XIII Amendment.

The people responsible for that didn't pretend that the law was different - they went and changed it.  That's not wishful interpretation, that's applied realism.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 4:47pm

Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

Strangely enough, as I was doing my research, I was surprised to find that Japan has seen a very large increase in gun related crime in recent years. As for Canada, as I said in another post, the Canadian provinces bordering the prairie states of the US have a higher percentage of gun related crime.

Which goes to my point completely.  Thank you.

Back to Top
636andy636 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested - Posting While Intoxicated

Joined: 30 November 2002
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 5890
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 636andy636 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 5:18pm
Originally posted by Zesty Zesty wrote:

Originally posted by 636andy636 636andy636 wrote:

Originally posted by Zesty Zesty wrote:

I was joking by the Canada comment, BTW.

Personally, the gun laws are one of the few things I seem to not like about Canada.

I'm into airguns as well, and as I understand it you can't get a BB/pellet gun with a muzzle velocity of over 495fps without getting a license for firearms!

that's whack.



true. but that does not stop people from ordering USA spec parts to make a detuned pellet gun into one that shoots over 500 fps. if it looks stock and you have the manual if say a ranger stops you, your fine aslong as he does not have a chronograph. usualy them seeing in the manual that its sub 500 fps your fine

im into airguning aswell. i will soon have a semi auto pistol. the first 2 guns will have to be registered and i will need a PAL or FAC to possess them. one will be 670 fps the outher will be close to 700 fps and there both in .22



My Airguns (yes i know my carpet is pink. all the rooms carpets are pink.


Oh, I feel you. I hear of those crazy Canadians doing that all the time, but it's illegal nonetheless. I really would feel stupid getting busted with an airgun!

Those are some nice guns....what is the Chinese break-barrel? I have a B/18 that kinda looks like that.

I didn't even notice the carpet!



nope not chinese. its a Czechoslovakian Slavia 620 from the late 50's to early-60's. accurate as hell and shoots 650-700 fps i mean under 500fps

im not woried about being busted with the upgraded guns because all they will do in my provance is take them away.
nouseforaname wrote:
oh good, a mech gun with eye covers and a rippoff Jackel frame ... ANS - "Stealing ideas since teh begining"


Back to Top
636andy636 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested - Posting While Intoxicated

Joined: 30 November 2002
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 5890
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 636andy636 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by TRAVELER TRAVELER wrote:

[QUOTE=pb125]

Canada seems fine without guns.


-me


[/QUOTE


You would think so, but in the provinces bordering the prairie states of the US, the rate of gun violence is actually higher in Canada.




canada also has more guns per population than the USA
nouseforaname wrote:
oh good, a mech gun with eye covers and a rippoff Jackel frame ... ANS - "Stealing ideas since teh begining"


Back to Top
AdmiralSenn View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 07 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2683
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AdmiralSenn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 9:18pm
On gun control...

My dad is frightening on this subject. He subscribes to one of the NRA magazines. Has anyone here who disses the NRA actually read their publications?

From what I've seen, the NRA is against silly things like banning .50 caliber rifles but not .499 caliber. There was some super-thin line between what was banned and what was not, and no significant difference in how much power they delivered.

Their point, accurate, biased, or not, was this:

If you're going to ban rifles of any kind, just ban them already. If not, it begins a path of slowly banning rifles of several types bit by bit.

I'm not even going to say if I agree with this idea, it's just an example of what they fight against. Granted Ted Nugent's recent rally sounded pretty scary, but from what I've seen that is not the norm among NRA members.

As for what I want... I think the National Gun Registry is a terrible idea, basically for the same reasons that people don't like the Patriot Act. It would allow the government to take people's guns a lot more easily.

I do support registering gun ownership, but I think it should be at the state level at the highest.

Meh. I think what really cheeses off gun enthusiasts is legislation like the AWB. It banned all kinds of legitimate guns because they had.. a bayonet lug? Meanwhile, the term 'assault rifle' is tossed around by politicians.

I just think the people in office don't have the knowledge they need to make intelligent decisions about guns in general. Inform them and I may take a less cynical stance.
Is God real? You'll find out when you die.

Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 9:41pm

Originally posted by AdmiralSenn AdmiralSenn wrote:

Has anyone here who disses the NRA actually read their publications?

Yep - that's why I diss them.  Their publications are ... ... oh so wrong.

Quote
Their point, accurate, biased, or not, was this:

If you're going to ban rifles of any kind, just ban them already.

Hardly.  The NRA does not support ANY position that would consider any banning an option.  The NRA universally takes a stand against every regulation or restriction that comes along.

They were against background checks.  They were against waiting periods.  They were against training requirements.  Against, against, against.

They don't engage in rational discussion.  They are simply a lobby group.

Quote ...Ted Nugent's recent rally sounded pretty scary, but from what I've seen that is not the norm among NRA members.

And that's the sad part.  Most NRA members are normal folks.  I just wish the NRA could act normal as well.

Quote Meh. I think what really cheeses off gun enthusiasts is legislation like the AWB.

No discussion there.  The AWB was idiotic.  Worth getting angry over.

 

Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 9:51pm
i red this prior to it being published but i found it funny...link
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
SR_Crewchief View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2663
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SR_Crewchief Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

Nice out of context yourself. That's Article 1 Section 8 where the base power of congress are initially defined. It does nothing to define what "militia" means. Generally at the time (circa 1791) militia ment all able bodied men in the community gathering for the common protection of the community. From this basis the National Guard eventually evolved as a more permenent organization.


Not out of context at all.  I was specifically discussing US v. Miller, which specifically references that specific provision of the Constitution.  Doesn't get much more contextual than that.



Very much out of context.

By US v Miller I presume your referencing the 1939 decision on the appeal the Arkansas Western District that was actually arguing the constatutionality of the what is commonly known as the "National Firearms Act" of 1934, You mean that US v Miller? Your citing is thin. Specificly your opinion is that the only militia allowed is at the behest of the government. That is not what the Supreme Court said or even implied in it decision.

Here is the entire third paragraph of the decision that you've referenced.

'The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.'

And here are the next two paragraphs:

'The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'

The point is that Article 1 Section 8 was not the crux of US v Miller (1939) but whether or not Section 11 of the 'National Firearms Act' (1934) was in violation of the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court ruled was not the case.

Not only did you take the citing of Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution out of context to US v Miller it was out of context to the dicussion as well. You were attempting to refute a commonly raise militia as being legal.

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

And you've specifically overlooked the Second Amendment. Which 3 basic purposes: 1) Insure the rights of the people to form militia's 2) Insure the rights of the people to possess firearms (happens to neatly support the first purpose without defining firearms by type, much less defining it being solely for the purpose of an armed militia) 3) Insures that first two purposes are not to be overridden. (this one has been severly trampled on)


I certainly did not "overlook" the Second Amendment - I was specifically discussing the legal interpretation thereof.  And the three purposes you describe are again your opinion - I am not aware that there is law to support that interpretation.  I don't even believe that matches up nicely with the Federalist Papers.The Second Amendment, perhaps more than any other provision of the Constitution, is consistently a victim of "wishful interpretation".  I am not saying you are doing this, Crewchief, but it certainly is common - the NRA has made a career of it. 



Then you need to go back and reread the Federalist Papers and others also written by Hamiliton, and both Madison's. You'll find, as I did, that "my Opinion" is very much in keeping with thier intent in the Second Amendment.
Back to Top
SR_Crewchief View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2663
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SR_Crewchief Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:19pm
[QUOTE=Clark Kent]

But we DO know who is right:  The US Supreme Court.  That's how the system works.  The rest of us just have opinions - the Court makes the law.


<snip>

Sorry, the Court never MAKES the law. It either uphold it or declares it un-Constitutional, where the decision before the Court is the constitutionality of a law.

The MAKING of law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:22pm

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

...Specificly your opinion is that the only militia allowed is at the behest of the government...   ... You were attempting to refute a commonly raise militia as being legal.

I won't bother responding to your post, since you are apparently attempting to defeat a position I did not take.

I choose not to be the strawman in your debate.

Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:29pm
Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:

[QUOTE=Clark Kent]

But we DO know who is right:  The US Supreme Court.  That's how the system works.  The rest of us just have opinions - the Court makes the law.


<snip>

Sorry, the Court never MAKES the law. It either uphold it or declares it un-Constitutional, where the decision before the Court is the constitutionality of a law.

The MAKING of law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

Even though they may not directly create law, they have been the deciding factor is most of the important law issues of the 20th century. They do make or break the law. Technically, they do create new laws or stipulations for laws.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:29pm

Originally posted by SR_Crewchief SR_Crewchief wrote:


Sorry, the Court never MAKES the law. It either uphold it or declares it un-Constitutional, where the decision before the Court is the constitutionality of a law.

The MAKING of law is reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

Well, yes and no.

The Judicial Branch has more power than to simply declare laws unconstitutional.  The Judicial Branch can also interpret laws (including the Consitution).  And since these interpretations are legally binding on lower courts, the result is judge-made law.

There are many areas of law where there is very little legislation, and mostly judge-made law.  Torts, for instance.  You will have to look hard to find in a statute book the law that you are liable for your own negligence.  That is judge-made law.  Almost all civil tort suits in this country are founded entirely in judge-made law.  Slip and fall?  Judge made.  Car accidents?  Judge made.

Then there are the interpretations.  Miranda warnings?  Judge-made by interpretation of the Fifth Amendment.

We have a common law system.  We have lots of judge-made law.

Back to Top
SR_Crewchief View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2663
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SR_Crewchief Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

<snip>

They were against background checks.  They were against waiting periods.  They were against training requirements.  Against, against, against.


<snip>


Your quite wrong on these points.

The NRA actually advocates a centralized nation database for background checks. Congress dismissed it as being to expensive to implement.

The NRA also advocates firearms safety training for everyone.

Yes they actively lobby against "Gun Control" measures that are nothing more than thinly vailed attempts to disarm law abiding citizians.

And for the record I am not nor have I ever been a member of the NRA.
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 10:31pm
We also have lots of regulatory committees creating laws like the FDA, FCC, and so on.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1112131415>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.