What's the goal of registration? The only point of registration is so the government can come back around and confiscate them at its leisure.


The point of the Second Amendment was for the general run of citizens to be able to own the same standard load-out that individual soldiers are issued. Soldiers aren't issued anti-aircraft weapons, cannon or tanks. That's a straw man argument, and doesn't add anything to the discussion.


Neither Harris nor Klebold was old enough to legally own a handgun, let alone a machinegun. How would the registration of a SAW keep it out of their hands when they had already broken the law to come to school with handguns?

I guess that I would just have to ask you guys where do you draw the line? Do you just make whatever new weapons technology allows available to the general public? 10 year old children of liberal  parents that are high on drugs going into the "local hardware store" and buying a laser pulse rifle? Hmmmmm, sounds like fun to me. You have to use a little bit of reason. If you argue on emotion and pure ideals than your arguments sound the same as the left wing anti-gun liberals, except that you are advocating instruments of death.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. The times they are a changin', but in a different way. Concealed carry is gaining popularity in all the states. Lawsuits against gun manufactures are being overturned or dismissed. We have newer and better weapons available to us all the time. Future looks fine to me.

No one has ever been killed by any of my guns.

A hammer is an instrument of death in the wrong hands.

A bottle of Clorox and some simple household chemicals, a bottle of gasoline with a torn off piece of tee shirt, an automobile, a swimming pool, a crack pipe, a length of rope, a plastic bag, a bottle of sleeping pills, a broom handle, a linoleum knife:

All instruments of death in the wrong hands.

It's not the tool that matters, it's the hand that wields it. Prior restraint is a flawed concept, no matter how it's used. You want to punish me for what I [b]might[/b] do?

Criminals break the law for a living, and they will always get guns. Look at Britain if you need proof of that.

Citizens will always need guns, in the final analysis, to protect themselves from their own governments. Far more people died in the twentieth century at the hands of their own government than at the hands of a criminal or in wars.

Anyone who says, "It can't happen here," is whistling past the graveyard of history.

After 68 years of progressive encroachment on the 2nd Amendment, you suggest that this year 2002 we have found the perfect balance between liberty and safety. I respectfully disagree.

I would like greater liberty. I think the prohibitions provide no additional safety. When people are determined to bring down airplanes, they generally will succeed -- with or without legalized anti-aircraft missiles.

Yes, registration is only useful to find out:
1.  Who the gun is registered to, after the crime, does nothing for prevention.  Of course, it could have been stolen.

2.  Make sure the gov. knows where to knock first.

Gun control laws are ALL flawed, in that laws are made to punish the criminal, they aren't very good at preventing the crime in the first place.  Unfortunately, when talking about murder, robbery, or any other crime with a gun...they are already committing a crime, so using an illegal gun probably won't bother them.

Ricky, I'll answer your question with a question.  Where do you draw the line on gun control?  How much is enough?  Now, ask this to an anti gunner, interesting answers from them I'll bet

[whacko]

Where is your source on that? I looked and looked for that exact paragraph in the Constitution but I just could not find it, what page is it on?


You were allowed to buy a firearm without an age requirement back in the day. This age thing sounds like a restriction to me, whose side are you on? The registration issue is sure keeping me from getting my hands on a SAW. Do you have a SAW? If so can I shoot it?
[Note: the legal age for owning a handgun and a machine gun is the same age, 21]

So you would draw the line at cartridge based firearms. They have railguns now, or the Firestorm, that is a new technology. Oh and they were both MAJOR breaktroughs.

I could not agree more.

Ricky, I beg to differ, what is keeping you from getting your hands on a SAW isn't registration, unless you're a felon.  What is keeping you from this is the fact that it would cost around 15 or 20 grand because of the 86 MG ban.  What do you think the government pays for a SAW...anyone know?  I know the M16 is probably cheaper than most of us pay for an AR.

I would like greater liberties as well and I already said that I do not support prohibitions. Please to good god do not tell me that you think there would not be a hell of a lot more downed planes if people could by antiaircraft missiles without restrictions. PLEEEAAAASEEE. No offense but you can not be that stupid.

As far as registration goes...you could look at MG's as the high end sports car of the firearms world.  Now, I wonder how many liberal anti's would scream if they suddenly had to register their lambo or ferrari or porsche, because it had the ABILITY to do more than 3 times the national speed limit, and was therefore possible it would be in more high fatality accidents.  And you only have to be 16 to own one of these things?  OMG...We must do ssomething about this terrible scourge on humanity.  

Congratulations Rickyj, from serious debate to sarcastic ass in three short posts. That's got to be some kind of board record.

If you don't believe that registration is only a prelude to confiscation, please tell me what it's for.

If you don't believe me about the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, why don't you look into some NRA literature. That's where I got it.

My point on the age matter was that they had already broken the law before the first shot was fired. Do you think they would have stopped at breaking another?

Yes, that is true. I was kind of making fun of your post. They (dylan and klebold) would not have been able to get a SAW because they would not have passed the registration requirements. And someone with a registered weapon would not have lent or sold it to a minor. If you disagree please loan or sell me your NFA item. I will pay top dollar but I do not want anything to do with those forms an shit.

How many people in America do you really think want to bring down planes Ricky?  Why does this argument have to be taken to extremes?  I don't really believe too many gun owners are disgruntled because they can't buy AA missiles, not many people could afford them if they wanted them anyway.  It's sort of a moot point, however, registration/confiscation is not a moot point.  Same with railguns/firestorm, moot point.  Besides, I think we have already had the "I don't need no stinking missile to down a plane" example.

Eric,

Let's highlight Lambert's from that of an individual to that of a trained, motivated and desperate individuals (1 in 280,000,000). So. he's big threat to the Gov?

If they never find Lambet, who really gives a f*ck – is the Gov helped or saved by this?

Lambert was probably a wacko with a wacko cause  –   hardly the Patriot that started this – BTT!

Oh...making fun.  Sorry I missed that..[rolleyes].  Really, bringing up columbine as a good example of the need for gun control really isn't germane to this particular discussion.  Since they already broke countless laws, starting with the one against MURDER, one more law would have made little difference, don't you agree?  Do you think that they didn't convert their semi tec 9 to FA because they knew that having an unregistered FA weapon was illegal?  Probably so..."Oh, man dont file that there, that's against the law!!!!!"

Oh...and to speak to the original message in this thread?  Nope, I think we are clinging to our rights, at least the ones we have left!

I don't think very many people want to bring down planes. I just don't think that we should sell the ones who do want to take an aircraft down an anti-aircraft missile. [:)]

Agreed.  But, to extend your argument to small arms....do you think we should sell a gun to someone that wants to shoot anybody?  How exactly do we determine who these folks are?  That would be great...I don't think registration will accomplish that.  [smile]

Determined people can drive a car down a Manhattan sidewalk and kill dozens. It doesn't happen too often. Cheer up.

To give a little perspective my posts were sarcastic because I believed your post to be way out there.


To keep the guns out of the hands of people who would not use them to kill inocent people. The fact that very few legally owned machineguns are used in crimes speaks volumes to me.
I do believe in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, why do you think I post here. I own an AR-15, a Glock, etc. etc. However these are just opinions and were not specified anywhere in the
Constitution.
From earlier:

The reason I was sarcastic was because you implied in your own post that you favored some weapons restrictions. Soldiers are issued anti-aircraft weapons and grenades, should you be able to buy these at your local gun shop? What I was trying to add to the argument was that everyone supports a line where certain weapons are not legal for just anyone to own.


No I don't think the idea of breaking that particular law would have stopped them. But I don't think that they would have been able to break that law.

arm   Pronunciation Key  (ärm)
n.

  1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
  2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
  3. arms
        1. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
        2. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
  4. arms
        1. Heraldry. Bearings.
        2. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.


v. armed, arm·ing, arms
v. intr.

  1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
  2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.


v. tr.

  1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
  2. To equip with what is needed for effective action: tax advisers who were armed with the latest forms.
  3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects: a space reentry vehicle that was armed with a ceramic shield.
  4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.

As defined by dictionary.com

I am bringing ordance into this discussion because I believe that they would fall under the category of arms. I do not believe that people should be able to buy ordnance. I brought this up to demonstrate that some arms are okay for anyone to own and some are not.

Good point. I would not a person that would do the above to have a weapon of mass destruction. Would you?

Edited because I forgot to ask why you did not say if you thought more planes would be downed if people could buy anti-aircraft missiles. Please answer, I am interested in your opinion.

I agree with almost everything you say. I would say that the tool does matter. Had the 9/11 terrorists been using broomsticks instead of vehicles the damage would not have been as great.

I think that this was the same question I asked.

I do not know the answer to this question. But that is okay because I know that I do support a line somewhere. The reason I asked the question was not to make people define the exact lines of right and wrong but admit that they believed there was a line somewhere.

If anti-aircraft missiles were available at the hardware store, I think marginally more, but not a hell of a lot more (as you asked originally) planes would be downed; and people would be safer from government oppression. The downed planes would make sensational news stories, while the freedom of people from government oppression would allow greater overall life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Overall things would be better than they are.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independance had everything to lose and not much to gain. Will we hold tight? Who knows, but will be defend house and home, maybe. When you get to my age is seems easier to do so, will the 20 to 30 age group do the same?  Hope so. Yes, Va a good thread. We should all take stock in what we  really stand for or against.

RICKY J QUOTED AND WROTE:


 There is a dividing line between all groups in existence. Between Apples and Oranges and between "right" and "wrong" and between Cheverolet's and Fords.  Classes of objects and concepts have boundaries.  But the only way that A line establishing boundaries for gun ownership and gun possession versus limits on those same rights should be drawn, would be if they are met with an equal limit in disempoweriing Governments.

For Instance: If a law were passed outlawing possession of FireArms. Then a Law should also be passed stating that if certain events pass outlined and enumerated then that is cause for revolt and the Military must side with the People. Would you take that in Trade? I wouldn't why not? Because the enforcement of that law still rests with the government. And you are creating a basic contradiction. That a government so needing to be overthrown could well nigh be expected to uphold the law that would limit their existence.


The point being that with the fact that "someone" is going to end up with the Power to Rule, it is a basic foundation of civilization, and that power, as our Four Fathers so aptly understood, must rest with the people.


 

And all of this is based upon the fact that People are Mortal, they do not live forever. And that the Natural world does exist as do concepts of Power,Leverage, Control, what not. And that regardless of how many people exist these concepts and their realities are going to wax back and forth across the populace and that because MAN IS NOT immortal he Does have to sustain his life and sometimes the tools he creates to sustain his life albeit  violent, are also very powerful, and can be used, as is some tools speciality, against other peoples. The founders of our nation understood that the most unquinchable human desire is for life. They made sure that in the worst of circumstances Your Life wouldn't be without promise or hope.

So my question to you is this, Where exactly does a man draw a line with respect to his life??


How do Firearms give man hope?  They are a tool that gives him ANOTHER MEASURE of control over his existence. They put before him the POWER to secure sustenance in the form of food.  Firearms are good for man.  In a world possibly faced with starvation a man can not only secure food for his family, he can keep others who would take his food from him at bay. You might say that man doesn't need this power?? I would argue that you are wrong.. And if my family or myself is faced with starvation I am going to use any and all means to sustain my life. After all I am MADE FOR THAT. SO IS THE GUN..

Going even further, history has shown that a person intent on taking a life will take it. Whether by GUN, by Knife, By BOW and ARROW, BY SPEAR, or BY A ROCK TIED TO THE END OF A STICK.  You will never outlaw a ROCK tied to a STICK because you can't outlaw rocks and you can't outlaw sticks. So WE SHOULD DRAW THE LINE AT MOTHERNATURE, For she put within MANS hand the power to control his destiny...  There is a rabbit over their, there is a stick here and a stone.... [thinking] .... okay I will take this rock and tie it to this stick with this peice of vine and then I will go and whack that rabbit over the head and my family will eat this evening. WHACK... UH OH, here comes that son of a bitch from the other clan over their. That guy always steals my food.... That sucker always takes my means of survival away from me... NOT TODAY... WHACK.....  So the world is born and the world has gone around and around for 100's of thousands of years.

OHH, We should form an organized group of men to keep all the sticks and stones in safe keeping! And then all of a sudden SOMEONE HAS LEVERAGE AND POWER AND IS RULING THE OTHERS, HOW YOU ASK? Because the organizing body has just taken away THE PEOPLES MEANS OF SURVIVAL so they must either go back to just growing crops and eating vegatables or they must go to the ORGANIZING BODY TO GAIN ACCESS TO MEAT.. And so either you become dependant upon them (which contradicts Man's #1 RULE, TO TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF. WHICH IS HARDWIRED AS WELL). hahaha


AND THIS ALSO ANSWERS THE ORIGINAL THREAD. Some Parts of the past cannot be let go of. Because you can't change physics and you can't change the nature of mans survival on the planet earth.


I am sure you get the point.

No man you are totally misreading me. I think most people should be allowed to own machineguns. I just also know that some should not.