Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.
- Thread starter garfoldsomeoneelse
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes. That's exactly it. Just because you own something that can potentially be dangerous, does not mean you will use it for nefarious purposes.KaZZaP said:
The government has no right to outlaw ownership of anything. Period. Limiting ownership is almost as bad as limiting speech. And I've said enough on where that leads throughout this thread, go look through the last 3-4 pages if you want details.
On a side note, you are aware how much a nuke costs right? It's not exactly something you can put together in a basement.
So do the vast majority of hunters, or at least the one's I've talked to. Granted, that only numbers about a dozen out of however many thousands, but I'm fairly positive it's a normal practice. They hunt, bring back what they kill, and do whatever it is they need to do to prep the meat for eating or storage.Rutawitz said:
Yes. You should still be able to own them. Ownership does not mean you have to use it maliciously, or use it at all.KaZZaP said:
Related to that, if it's so easy to make in a basement, especially since they can be made out of fairly common items, banning the sale of "pipe bombs" will do nothing. If someone really wanted to blow up a building, they'd build it in their basement as you suggest and proceed from there.
So you're saying if you we're a cop or some kind of super bad ass judge cop who makes the rules and enforces them and you find a guy making enough explosives to take out a building you would just let him go about his business? What about if he started setting them up, hey taping something to the foundation of a building isn't illegal.Agayek said:
Or what if someone had 200 pounds of crystal meth, of course they're going to sell it but should you have to wait until you catch them in the act? I would not want to live in a world without laws on what you can own. Next thing you know P Diddy would be rolling down the road in a tank.
1) If I was in that position of authority, I would use my best judgment and the situation to decide. If he was walking down the street with a pipebomb hanging out of his pocket, no I would not stop him. If he was taping one to the foundation of a building, I would beat him to within an inch of his life.KaZZaP said:
2) I, personally, see nothing wrong with any narcotic. If people want to ruin their lives over temporary highs, I could not care less. Matter of fact, I would like to encourage those people to take drugs. Then maybe they'll die faster and the human gene pool won't have to worry about idiots like that. All narcotics should be perfectly legal in my opinion. If people are aware of the consequences of using them, as the vast majority of the United States are (in my experience at least), then they are free to choose whatever they like. If they harm anyone else while intoxicated though, then they will be punished to the fullest extent possible, preferably starting with a beating and culminating in decapitation.
Agayek said:
1) Well too bad authorities don't always catch the guy in the act, 5000 people are dead and you could of prevented it but you didn't see anything wrong with that guy with a bomb hanging out of his pocket.
2) I sort of agree with you (seeing as I have to as I smoke/buy a ton of weed) but the damage that could be done/prevented is huge. That guy makes a ridiculous amount of money goes out and buys a SUV that has a mini-gun pop up threw the roof and goes and makes his rivals pay killing 50 rival gang members most of which we're probably just lost, confused, intimidated youths and 10 innocents caught in the cross fire.
That risk is a price I'm willing to pay for my freedom. We just have different values, probably will never agree on this.KaZZaP said:
That's when you find the guy and rip him in half.KaZZaP said:
And on a side note, there's no such thing as innocent gang members. The fact that they joined a gang means they support it.
keep your assault rifle calibers..I'll defend my house with a 30-06 springfield.
One of the original fight stoppers.
If a WW2 rifle is good enough for Clint Eastwood,then it's good enough for me.
I don't feel assault rifles should be banned.
If assault rifles are to be banned because they kill people,then cars should be banned next.
http://tinyurl.com/d46fcp
Case in point
North Hollywood shootout..Cops had to go to a gun store to "borrow" assault rifles because the bad guys were wearing body armor.
Of course the guys that held up the place were using illegal modified weapons and had obtained AP rounds.
One of the original fight stoppers.
If a WW2 rifle is good enough for Clint Eastwood,then it's good enough for me.
I don't feel assault rifles should be banned.
If assault rifles are to be banned because they kill people,then cars should be banned next.
http://tinyurl.com/d46fcp
Case in point
North Hollywood shootout..Cops had to go to a gun store to "borrow" assault rifles because the bad guys were wearing body armor.
Of course the guys that held up the place were using illegal modified weapons and had obtained AP rounds.
Don't ban assault weapons. At least not yet. I want to be absolutely sure that the Swine Flu isn't gonna turn anyone into a zombie before I make any decisions regarding this.
