Yossarian
Banned
My ilk and I get away with respecting the Constitution and it disgusts you - that's a unique perspective. Tell me more. BTW, I was active duty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers
- Thread starter walksalone
- Start date
HeyBurke
New member
You were active duty? Congrats! I'm a reservist. What's that matter? Do you think you have more right to an opinion because you were active duty?
sd'sker
Banned
so after my response to you, you just point out a mistake i made? well played. again, i never said owning guns should be banned, just that there should be limits.
krill
New member
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/07/28/the-end-of-gun-control/
Interesting article I saw today on reddit. tl;dr version...3D printers that are now as cheap as $500 can easily "print" something like an AR-15 receiver. In theory for around $1000 you could buy a Saiga, print a automatic receiver that's illegal, print high capacity magazines, buy off the shelf accessories, and have true assault rifle.
I do very much question why people defend having military rifles like an AR-15 with high capacities magazines as something they need, but at the same times there are questions about the efficacy of gun control keeping weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm with them. From what I know the original assault weapons ban left so many loopholes that all it really did was add red tape, and now with people being able to create their own equipment with printers, how likely is it that any kind of regulation would keep something like a high capacity magazine out of reach for a killer?
Interesting article I saw today on reddit. tl;dr version...3D printers that are now as cheap as $500 can easily "print" something like an AR-15 receiver. In theory for around $1000 you could buy a Saiga, print a automatic receiver that's illegal, print high capacity magazines, buy off the shelf accessories, and have true assault rifle.
I do very much question why people defend having military rifles like an AR-15 with high capacities magazines as something they need, but at the same times there are questions about the efficacy of gun control keeping weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm with them. From what I know the original assault weapons ban left so many loopholes that all it really did was add red tape, and now with people being able to create their own equipment with printers, how likely is it that any kind of regulation would keep something like a high capacity magazine out of reach for a killer?
Yossarian
Banned
Not really...you're the one who pulled the veteran card on me. I'm sure the Constitution needs to be protected and defended in Lincoln. :lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
sd'sker
Banned
i do not know whether or not you doubt if i am buying his book. if i had to guess, i would guess you do doubt i will buy his book. yeah, you have the right to bear arms, it does not mention what arms.
lo country
Mods
Here is a thought. What if the firearms, ammunition, accessories are "taxed" at a higher rate to purchase. A VAT or use tax if you will. (Commerce Clause) They are taxed at such a rate that it makes them virtually impossible to purchase. It is a "tax" not a penalty. Or if Chicago, Philly, Boston et al are allowed to use view point discrimination (not my words ACLU Illinois) to keep Chick-fil-a out of their respective cities, could a person in that particular govt entity then not issue a tax permit/business license/occupancy license etc based upon their assertion that the company doesn't represent their "values" or that their values are harmful to their city/county as a whole?
There are many ways that the govt can "control" the ownership without even looking like it.
There are many ways that the govt can "control" the ownership without even looking like it.
sd'sker
Banned
rawhide
Team HuskerBoard
Since I didn't read all the vitriol and witty ripostes throughout this thread here are some FBI numbers
Since the Brady Act requiring background checks which are supposed to be done; 1998 to 2010 149 million checks have been done. Same FBI info violent crime from 1991 to 2010 all violent crime has dropped murder from 9,8 to 4.3 per 100k, etc. Yet, the population has increased. How can this be you say. Has it been due to some superduper gun laws, no. Has it been do to less people, no.
Two things increased: population and the number of people buying guns. just sayin'
NFA gun laws are enforced also. Just ask the lady and men at Sons of Guns
Since the Brady Act requiring background checks which are supposed to be done; 1998 to 2010 149 million checks have been done. Same FBI info violent crime from 1991 to 2010 all violent crime has dropped murder from 9,8 to 4.3 per 100k, etc. Yet, the population has increased. How can this be you say. Has it been due to some superduper gun laws, no. Has it been do to less people, no.
Two things increased: population and the number of people buying guns. just sayin'
NFA gun laws are enforced also. Just ask the lady and men at Sons of Guns
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense
New member
Actually . . . the statistics show otherwise. The percentage of households with guns has declined fairly steadily since 1960.
walksalone
New member
Thats fine, they can ban them, after I get my rifles, and I'm on my 10 acres northwest of Rapid City...
