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

How much longer do I have?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 9:50am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:


The day I become a cop, lawyer, judge, or gun store owner I will answer that question.

Just because I can't answer it doesn't mean it's not possible.



Oh, youre' not one?

That explains why you have been consistently wrong in this thread.

GG guys, GG.


Hw have I been consistently wrong?

I only said like one thing that was wrong. That was what Tallen linked me to.

Que pasa?


Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 9:56am
And it only "happened" to be the crux of your argument?

As I said, GG.

Give up while you're not too far behind.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 9:58am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

And it only "happened" to be the crux of your argument?

As I said, GG.

Give up while you're not too far behind.


What argument?

I was saying I think those things should disqualify you from buying guns.

Tallen came in and said that stuff like that already exists.

I didn't have any other argument.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 10:31am
It isn't a loophole, per se. You can always buy gun privately. The gunshow just brings prospective sellers and buyers into the same room.

There are classified ads and the like for those other times.

KBK
Back to Top
JohnnyHopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I.O.U. a punch

Joined: 15 June 2002
Location: North Chuck SC
Status: Offline
Points: 4664
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JohnnyHopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 11:35am
I understand the annoyance with the point and click ease guns give the wrong people. What I do not understand is why it matters how lives are ended. The main issue with guns is the death and destruction they can be used to cause, but in terms of numbers and cost cars are much worse. If the common denominator in gun control legislation is protecting us innocent cogs from death and dismemberment, why not address causees of death, pain and suffereing in quantitative terms.

This site may be a complete load of bunk, but they have cool graphs so it must be true. I like that "medical misadventures" is higher on the list of cause of death than firearms.


Guns appear to be a minor threat compared to how they are characterized. Kinda like how people are scared of sharks but think nothing of the true suffering caused by the cute fuzzy deer menace.
My shoes of peace have steel toes.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 12:05pm
http://www.yahoo.com/s/984332


Strangely enough, that store is just down the road and I'm supposed to go to it with a friend next week.


But no more AK's =(

Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 12:06pm
I posted this in another thread but this one seemed appropriate as well:
Straight from the horse's mouth.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/
Quote
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.


The Tiahrt Amendment which they want to do away with, "prohibits the BATF from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit."

Thus, what it says on Obama's website about the amendment restricting, "...the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information." Is a bunch of bull**edited**. They CAN access the BATF database so long as their inquiries are associated with a criminal investigation. This amendment is in place to protect the privacy rights of gun owners across the nation. Furthermore, the BATF database only logs legal store purchases and firearms which have been seized by the BATF (which are promptly either stored by the BATF or destroyed). This proposal has nothing to do with criminal actions. It is an attempt to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens who wish to practice their second amendment rights.

As for the Gun Show "Loophole" that everyone always talks about but never attempts to explain. Firearms in the possession of an individual are transferable to another individual within the same state without a background check so long as the transaction is between a non-licensed owner and buyer. What this means is that private collectors such as myself and Shorty may walk into a gun show and sell pieces of our collections to other collectors and vice-versa, the same as if we were to do it in private at our homes. It does not mean that dealers are allowed to sell firearms as shows to people without performing a background check. All licensed firearms dealers must have BATF form 4473 and a cell phone on them at all times so that they can perform the NCIS background check.

Now, I have no problem with requiring private sellers to perform such a background check and keep a log book. C&R license holders are required to keep a log book of their firearms transactions and I have no problem with it. But this means that the FBI would have to make the NCIS line available to the public for free. The other issue is that the general public are not experts on I.D.'s thus the law would have to state, for the protection of the public, that no private seller can be held responsible for selling a firearm to someone with an ID of reasonable authenticity, just like the dram-shop laws state to protect the owners of establishments that serve alcohol. The day they do that is the day that I say "Go right ahead!"

I explained that the "Assault Weapons" ban is nothing more than a feel-good piece of legislation that does nothing to actually ban military style weapons from being owned or operated in this country. Furthermore, the definition of an "assault weapon" is arbitrary at best. The vast majority of gun crimes committed in this nation are not committed with military firearms but rather cheap handguns. All this type of ban does is keep legitimate collectors such as myself and Shorty from being able to purchase the pieces we want for historical value.

This is why people are going out and buying firearms at a 300% uptake in the past week. NCIS checks are up 300% and you can't keep surplus ammo on the shelves it's moving so fast. Everyone that says we are "paranoid" can shove their foot in their mouth. We've seen it coming from a long way off and now you can see it too, right there on the transitional website.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 2:02pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

It is an attempt to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens who wish to practice their second amendment rights.



Use the foil for cooking, not hats please.

"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 2:24pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

It is an attempt to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens who wish to practice their second amendment rights.



Use the foil for cooking, not hats please.



Then tell me why they need to have access to such information when they are not investigating a criminal action?
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 2:56pm
I just want a pistol when I'm 21. I've got a year and a month to go. Can I make it?
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 3:02pm
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:


Then tell me why they need to have access to such information when they are not investigating a criminal action?


Meh, I don't disagree with you.

But if you're really that worried about the government taking away your guns, it's time to stage a Waco.

*EDIT* The more I think about it, the stupider this whole argument gets. 

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if we, like the Swedes, mandated that everyone owns firearms and be trained to use them.  But honestly, there is not ever going to be a second war for independence.  Either the military sides with the government, and your guns are useless, or the military goes against the government, and your guns aren't necessary.  The 2nd Amendment may be part of the Constitution, but it certainly means little, if anything, anymore.


Edited by ParielIsBack - 08 November 2008 at 3:06pm
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 5:09pm
You'll be fine DeTrev, it's going to be longer than that for them to start bickering over gun-control. They need to get the economy out of the dumps and start making good on their promises of "finding bin-laden" and ending the wars before they can get anywhere near firearms.

<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 November 2008 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

The 2nd Amendment may be part of the Constitution, but it certainly means little, if anything, anymore.


The problem is that a parallel can be drawn between a government taking rights from its citizens and eating Lays potato chips:  You can't take just one.
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 10:50am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Either the military sides with the government, and your guns are useless, or the military goes against the government, and your guns aren't necessary.  The 2nd Amendment may be part of the Constitution, but it certainly means little, if anything, anymore.


i think thats making an awefull big assumption - that the military will all go one way.

here's a situation - say one very influetial general goes one way and another goes the other way. the troops then pick thier sides and the entire army splits. at that point those guns could indeed be very usefull.

besides, the only use for guns isnt in case of an attempted revolution.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:16am
adrenaline;

It is common knowledge that the military is the single most conservative population in the US...

Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:23am

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

adrenaline;

It is common knowledge that the military is the single most conservative population in the US...

Not to get all nit-picky... It may be "common knowledge," but I highly doubt it is correct.

Yes, historically the military votes more Republican than Democrat, but there are numerous other groups that are far more unified in their GOP support - like my county, for instance, or Miami Cubans, or just old white men.

Last time I checked, the military usually clocked in at about 60/40 - I could be wrong, but I believe that is quite a bit less lopsided than many other groups.

Of course, this election those number may be all out of whack.

Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:38am
Originally posted by ammolord ammolord wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Question: Would you shoot anyone caught breaking into your house? What if they were leaving?
I would fire upon anyone that I perceived as a threat to the well being of myself or my family.


isent what the law is?? that you can only shoot if you feel the person is a threat to yourself or property?



Why a threat to your property though? Does that justify killing someone?

Tallen: So even if they were leaving after stealing your things?

What exactly do you mean by "perceive as a threat?"
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:40am
just because its common knowledge, doesnt mean its correct.

i'm not trying to say more of them arent conservative then liberal - merely that they may not be as unified on this issue as you think.

and aside from that, just someone is conservative, does not mean they will always do the exact same thing as another conservative in any situation.

in 2007, only 46% of armed services personell surveyed identified themselves as republican.

only 35% approved of bush's handling of the war.

3/4ths said the military is streched to thin to be effective.



source

however, to support your claim, of armed services personell surveyed, 68% were for mccain, and 23% were for obama.

when asked what the most important criteria in voting for a president was, 42% said character, 25% said economy, and 17% said the war in iraq.

source

while it may not be immediately obvious why some of this is even relevant - the point is, as viewable by statistics, people in the army dont always have the same view on everything, and to say that the army could possibly split should a revolution be attempted is not at all unrealistic.

Edit - dang, rambino beat me to it.


Edited by adrenalinejunky - 09 November 2008 at 11:45am
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:41am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by ammolord ammolord wrote:

Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Question: Would you shoot anyone caught breaking into your house? What if they were leaving?
I would fire upon anyone that I perceived as a threat to the well being of myself or my family.


isent what the law is?? that you can only shoot if you feel the person is a threat to yourself or property?



Why a threat to your property though? Does that justify killing someone?

Tallen: So even if they were leaving after stealing your things?

What exactly do you mean by "perceive as a threat?"
i'm just curious, where did he say a threat to his property?
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 November 2008 at 11:47am
Originally posted by Rambino Rambino wrote:

there are numerous other groups that are far more unified in their GOP support - like my county, for instance,
Enjoy Sensenbrenner

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.