Remind me again. When's the last time you've seen a privately-owned tank rumbling down the street again?

YOU are the one advocating for the curtailing of our rights. remember that

4/6/2009 4:14:58 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/14/1978620.htm

4/6/2009 4:18:52 PM

If you're a militant rebel group, I don't think you are going to be tip-toeing around gun ownership laws. You're going to have bigger issues. Trotting this line out is a really dumb argument, especially when this is not the intent of gun control laws, and not even their execution.

You don't fight a violent rebellion by conforming to the laws of the power you're rising against anyway.

4/6/2009 4:18:52 PM

congratulations. you found one example. in Australia.

people do more damage with cars on a daily basis. Remember that guy that went on a rampage in a bulldozer? Guess we ought to ban those, too...

^ and the Constitution wasn't written solely to protect militant rebel groups.

4/6/2009 4:20:21 PM

There was a case here where a guy took a bulldozer and welded plating to it, and went on a rampage around town, eventually demolishing his former place of employment. It was on one of those "world's craziest videos" shows.

^ gun control laws don't violate the constitution. And I was referring to bigun20's dumb argument anyway.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2009 4:23:26 PM

i know. clearly we should ban bulldozers.

the fuck they don't. What part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't make sense to you?

4/6/2009 4:24:14 PM

I would bet it's not legal to drive up-armored bull dozers around.

4/6/2009 4:25:16 PM

and?

I'm certain it's not legal to drive them around AND DESTROY STUFF, so we are kind of already covered against that.

4/6/2009 4:25:54 PM

Actually, I wouldnt mind civilians having tanks. WMD's and chemical weapons are sketchy in my book due to the mass killing potential and uncontrollable nature. Then again, we dont want a Sadam type dictator to get voted in one day and use them on us......

4/6/2009 4:27:44 PM

there is almost an equal killing potential with a tank, buddy.

4/6/2009 4:28:30 PM

Quote :

"^ gun control laws don't violate the constitution. And I was referring to bigun20's dumb argument anyway. "

I didnt say they did.....I said they limit the peoples power and give the government too much power.......

Yes, a direct quote from the declaration of independence is a dumb arguement

^My point is that I can aim a tank shell......I cant aim where the wind blows my chemical agents....

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 4:30:01 PM

just putting this out there, but in the bill of rights it states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"...

but there have been cases where it's been found that congress has the right to restrict such freedom in cases of national security, etc (ie the pentagon papers).

do you agree that congress should be able to restrict freedom of speech, so clearly written in the bill of rights, or is that unconstitutional in your opinion a well?


(merely trying to make a point that other things written in the constitution have been changed)

4/6/2009 4:32:21 PM

just because Congress has ignored the Constitution before doesn't give it the right to do so again.

I'm not familiar w/ the case you cite, though. So I can't comment on it either way

^^ and? Who cares if you can't control the wind. A couple well-placed tank rounds can bring down a building. Bring down the right building and you could release all kinds of toxins into the air.

4/6/2009 4:34:09 PM

nevermind, that's not the case that i was thinking of

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2009 4:37:49 PM

Example two in California: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson

4/6/2009 4:44:41 PM

Quote :

"there is almost an equal killing potential with a tank, buddy."

You heard it here first: tanks and nuclear weapons have the same killing potential.

4/6/2009 4:46:20 PM

^^ example two: a STOLEN tank. good work

^ key word "almost." ftr, I did NOT say tanks and nukes have an equal killing potential. I was referencing tanks and chemical weapons. Though, yes, the original also referenced WMDs, as well. But, WMD doesn't encompass only nukes



OMFG!!! DOUBLE POST!!! BAN!!! SUSPEND!!! TERMINATE!!!

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2009 4:50:29 PM

Quote :

"^^ example two: a STOLEN tank. good work"

If he owned it, he couldn't have used it illegally. Just like if I buy a gun legally, I magically can't use it in a crime or in any negligently dangerous activities.

Quote :

"I was referencing tanks and chemical weapons. Though, yes, the original also referenced WMDs, as well. But, WMD doesn't encompass only nukes"

Chemical weapons can reasonably be deployed to kill many, many more people than a tank. A tank would be stopped pretty quickly and could, feasibly, kill a few hundred people. A dirty bomb in a major metropolitan area could have a much larger effect.

Why the fuck am I arguing with aaronburro, the Glen Beck of the internet?

4/6/2009 5:03:44 PM

Quote :

"If he owned it, he couldn't have used it illegally."

But he DIDN'T own it. In fact, the GOVERNMENT owned it. Guess the government shouldn't have tanks, either, right?

Quote :

"Just like if I buy a gun legally, I magically can't use it in a crime or in any negligently dangerous activities."

It's too bad that the vast majority of guns used in crimes aren't purchased legally. SIIIIICK! BUUUUUUUUURN!

Quote :

"Chemical weapons can reasonably be deployed to kill many, many more people than a tank."

And a tank can be deployed to kill many people, as well. You underestimate the killing power of such a vehicle.

Quote :

"A dirty bomb in a major metropolitan area could have a much larger effect."

And?

4/6/2009 5:10:28 PM

Quote :

"It's too bad that the vast majority of guns used in crimes aren't purchased legally. SIIIIICK! BUUUUUUUUURN!"

If any non-zero number of legally owned guns are used to commit a crime, this is an excellent argument against legal nukes.

Plus your argument that tanks are massively destructive is a good argument against legal tanks.

4/6/2009 5:47:10 PM

neither of those is a valid argument. sorry. otherwise, we should ban everything else that is marginally dangerous. such as cars. or trees. or paper-clips

4/6/2009 5:49:26 PM

Quote :

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act"

He asked for evidence of politicians seeking to do more than ban the sale of certain guns and mandate seizing hunting rifles, shotguns and basic handguns. The fact that such actions were explicitly made illegal after the fact does not change the fact that it happened in the first place, and happened recently. Nor does it alter the fact that it was already illegal (see "shall not be infringed", along with "shall not be deprived... without due process of law") but they did it anyway.

As to the claim that they only took them from abandoned homes, clearly not, or the NRA wouldn't have been able to find people to bring suit in the first place:

http://www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2005/09/27/RegionalNews/Nra-Wins.New.Orleans.Gun.Battle-1281496.shtml

http://www.dailytoreador.com/media/storage/paper870/news/2005/09/19/LocalNews/Nra-Upset.With.New.Orleans.Pd.Gun.Confiscation.Order-1281392.shtml

Quote :

""No one will be able to be armed," Compass said in The Washington Post article. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.""

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/editorials/local_story_301105142.html
(search for the woman mentioned on google video and the Fox broadcast what happened is one of the first hits)

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200603210744.asp
(I know I know, NRO, it's not my fault most of the other hits on google news are pay per view archives or sites with links to them)

It's also worth pointing out that the affidavit system to reclaim your firearm was only put in place as a result of a lawsuit and was 3 YEARS after the fact.


[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 9:43 PM. Reason : links]

4/6/2009 9:42:10 PM

^ Now thats a great SB response and I actually agree with almost all of it. I only mentioned that Protection Act because very few people who cite post-Katrina weapons confiscation are familiar with it.

Quote :

"As to the claim that they only took them from abandoned homes, clearly not, or the NRA wouldn't have been able to find people to bring suit in the first place"

I thought that the suit was filed by the NRA.

4/6/2009 10:22:55 PM

The first article linked has an NRA guy saying they needed a citizen to bring suit first, which IIRC is how most of these things work. That's why the NRA didn't just sue DC years ago over the firearms laws, they had to wait for a DC resident to be wronged by the law and bring suit.

4/6/2009 10:53:27 PM

Oh whoops. You're right.

4/6/2009 10:55:12 PM

I bet grenades are fun, but I don't think they're legal.

WHEN DO WE GET OUR GRENADES BACK?

4/7/2009 12:33:36 AM

Did you guys hear that terrorist groups are using the internet for recruitment purposes???!!! Lets BAN THE INTERNET!!

4/7/2009 2:37:09 AM

Yes let's compare the internet, paperclips, and the private ownership of nuclear warheads.

4/7/2009 11:47:15 AM

those weapons are only as deadly as the communication behind their use is effective

4/7/2009 11:52:43 AM

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pelosi-We-Want-Registration-bw-14883186.html

Quote :

"Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico. “These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.” Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines."

4/8/2009 8:09:49 PM

I'm all for gun ownership, but burro has to be trolling with his nuclear weapons bit.

4/8/2009 11:17:20 PM

I would really like to see the statistics about all the games being trafficked to Mexico from the US.

4/9/2009 4:31:50 AM

For those doubting the President's commitment to gun control:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/05/01/ldt.tucker.gun.rights.cnn?iref=24hours

5/3/2009 10:21:59 PM

I'm tired of not being able to just go to the store and buy a couple boxes of ammunition. For those not in the know, handgun (and probably a couple of rifle calibers) ammunition has been almost impossible to find, because people are so paranoid of the Dems taking draconian anti-gun measures that they're buying and hoarding ammo in huge quantities.

I've probably tried 10 different stores, and probably that many more mail order websites...I found one store selling it for about double the normal price, and another with a one box limit (2 hours from my house--I was hoping they could ship me a bunch, but it's not worth shipping one box). I've yet to find a single website that isn't sold out of all the popular calibers (even mail order companies that don't do ANYTHING except sell ammunition).

The ammo companies are apparently stepping up production to try to keep up as best as they can, but they can't produce ammo as fast as people are buying it.

I finally sent my cousin to the gun show in Raleigh today with $200 and instructions to buy as much .45 acp ammunition as he could get with it. I know he got a bunch...don't exactly the quantity, yet.

[Edited on May 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/3/2009 10:46:16 PM

Quote :

"I finally sent my cousin to the gun show in Raleigh today with $200 and instructions to buy as much .45 acp ammunition as he could get with it"

so..... you're kind of part of the problem....?

i mean, i know you haven't been hoarding it previously, but what if it's only 10% of the people who are actually hoarding it because Obama will tuk 'ur guns, and 90% of people who are buying as much as they can because everybody else is buying as much as they can?

5/3/2009 10:48:48 PM

well, yeah, at this point, i don't know any solution except to be part of the problem. I'm not buying tons of ammo because I really think that the Dems are going to go THAT far with gun control measures...I'm buying tons of ammo because everyone else is buying every store out of stock as soon as a shipment comes in, and until I find a hookup to reload for me, there isn't any other way to make sure that I'll have ammo for the foreseeable future if I want to go to the range and shoot.

(this is all target-shooting ammo...I have a couple dozen dozen rounds of people-shooting ammo, but that stuff is much more expensive...it would be silly to burn it at the range)


I suppose that eventually, it will get back under control as (A) people finally stockpile so many, many thousands of rounds that there's no point in buying any more, (B) they realize that the Dems are going to be bad, but not THAT bad, or (C) Both.

On the other hand, I can't believe it's still this bad this long after the election, so who knows when it will subside.

[Edited on May 3, 2009 at 10:56 PM. Reason : asdf]

5/3/2009 10:53:41 PM

Wow i knew the ammo shortage has gotten bad but i did not realize it has sunk to this.

The conservatives talked about the crazy liberal hippy enviro nuts during the bush days.

Now its the moonbat schizophrenic right who thinks Obama is on a mission to ruin the economy, embrace the muslim terrorists, spread the global warming Al Gore conspiracy, socialize all major industries, and worst of all TUK ER GUNZ AND AMMO!

I believe and support the current status quo on weapons. Though i support loosening of concealed carry laws as far as places like a university is concerned and more leniency in the use of deadly force in defense (i.e. I should not have to just sit there "please stop taking my TV mister" if some thugs are robbing my house yet not directing a threat towards me). On the other hand I do not have a problem with the 3 days to get a handgun law.

Either way I honestly can not believe people really think Obama is going to succeed in some all out ban on guns. This would be stupid and unwarranted; most likely losing him the election. He may personally believe in a general weapons ban but there is no way I can see this taking shape any time in the years to come in the US.

I am actually looking into the purchase of a gun; but I'd rather hold off right now while the market is artificially inflated by your Johnny Boy gun touting rednecks; bunkering down in their own personal armories. All after going into a gun/ammo buying frenzy following a Rush Limbaugh rant about Obama taking our guns.

^ Duke can you not get ammo through the military??

[Edited on May 3, 2009 at 11:08 PM. Reason : l]

5/3/2009 11:06:50 PM

^ no

and the military uses almost no .45 acp, anyway.


I do find it kind of funny that the left's stupid anti-gun policies and rhetoric are causing an absolute explosion in the sales and proliferation of firearms and ammunition.

[Edited on May 3, 2009 at 11:18 PM. Reason : sadasdfd]

5/3/2009 11:16:46 PM

it is called an ASSAULT weapon. maybe if it was changed to defense weapon, the hippies would be more okay with it.

5/3/2009 11:39:06 PM

Maybe Obama & Friends had stock in Remington, Winchester, and the various ammo companies. All the banning rhetoric was part of the Liberal conspiracy to make tons of $$$ when the base of the republican party got paranoid and decided to hoard ammo; while putting their guns into metal boxes buried in their front lawns.

[Edited on May 3, 2009 at 11:50 PM. Reason : l]

5/3/2009 11:40:19 PM

^^ umm, who do you think it is calling them "assault weapons"?

5/3/2009 11:42:33 PM

everyone. seriously, i've never heard them called defense rifles. i've never heard them called anything but assault rifles. the nra needs to get their pr people on it.

5/4/2009 8:25:06 AM

I've heard battle rifle used instead of assault rifle.

5/4/2009 8:44:52 AM

i say badass rifles or BFGs

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason : ^ Halo? ]

5/4/2009 10:36:30 AM

Democrat Bobby Rush of Illinois introduced HR45 which would force licensing of all semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The former Black Panther wants a total ban of all firearms- lecturing us that "guns have no place in a civilized society: (this coming from a guy who served 6 months in prison on weapons charges).

This bill will require thumb-prints, gun registration, expensive fees, numerous forms to fill out, and certifications to pass. We will basically have to get permission from the gov't to own a gun.

President Obama has told us that he is not anti-gun. A veto on this piece of garbage bill will let us know he supports that opinion.

[Edited on May 4, 2009 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2009 10:55:13 AM

i think it's hard to argue that there aren't certain types of weapons that should have a higher standard for ownership (let's say tanks, high explosives, etc). maybe some people just draw a different line than you might on what weapons are acceptable for little to no oversight.

5/4/2009 10:58:10 AM

The 2nd amendment clearly protects my right to own and use a doomsday device.

5/4/2009 11:55:03 AM

Fucking Liberals its my dam right as a Amurican to own me a M60 Light Machine Gun

5/4/2009 12:47:39 PM

Quote :

"We will basically have to get permission from the gov't to own a gun. "

Well, we already need their permission to:
Drive a car
Fly a Plane
Buy Alcohol
Own/Hunt/Kill certain animals
Get married
Adopt a child
Build a big fire
Launch an object into high altitude
Erect a building
Stage a protest

I don't see why needing a license/permit to own a handgun is so hard to stomach considering all the other things that the government can take away from us. If you're so hard on about total freedom, then why are these other infringements ok?

5/4/2009 1:17:25 PM

because you may decide to take up arms against the LIBERAL socialist gov't run by the democrats or you may need an assault rifle to repel a gang of minorities trying to pillage your house and rape your daughters.

5/4/2009 1:36:04 PM