Latest PSU headlines:

Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 61626 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 652
  1. #376
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    42,328 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    I know the max is .23
    .22 is the max for semi auto.

  2. #377
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    The bill of rights in our constitution simply reaffirms our god given/natural born rights. The government does not give us our rights. The BOR was placed in in our constitution because there were those that believed that even though it should be obvious to an enlightened individual, it would be a good idea to have certain rights explicitly stated just in case. Turns out they were right to do such a thing.

    The founders may have crafted the constitution with the laws in other countries in mind, but they saw the flaws in those other laws and used them as an example to avoid the shortcomings of those laws.

    Perhaps you need to read our second amendment again:



    There was debate to whether application of the rights was to the people or the militia, this is my response:



    In addition it has been reaffirmed by our supreme court in the Heller case.



    And by the way, you can own a tank in the US, assuming you have the means to afford one. Legally driving it down the street is another matter.

    I suggest you thoroughly read the decision of our supreme court in the Heller and McDonald cases and revise your statements.

    As to the picture I posted. That firearm is completely legal in the UK to own and use (for example target shooting). It is manufactured by a UK company. It has been modified to comply with UK laws.
    what is it that you want me to revise? the idea that the constitution isn't outdated on this matter because its been upheld in court?

    to be fair i don't really follow US politics or law anymore at all, but i've already addressed the point. laws are there to counterbalance rights. i never said the government gave you your rights - but in reality they do affect them through statutory law. as they should. if we left it to courts we be stuck with the status quo, as they tend to work off precedent far more than anything else.

    they, like your legislative and executive, are unable to change the framework within which gun use and ownership is allowed because of the hysteria that would follow from changing what is seen as an infallible document. it doesn't mean that your constitution is not wrong on this.



    and as to the picture - i would've thought that, having dealt with the relevant authorities on this personally, you'd seriously struggle to get your firearms inspector to sign off on that weapon, regardless of its legality. its not a simple case of "this is legal". either way, it would have to be locked in separate gun cabinets (if you can split it) in different parts of the house. it really isn't comparable. in fact, it just demonstrates good gun legislation. you couldn't have that lying around your house, and in fact you'd struggle to have one *despite* it being legal.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 22:42.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  3. #378
    Power Member
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,386
    Rep Power
    124
    Points
    56,463 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    They cost 900 LOL

  4. #379
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,608
    Rep Power
    125
    Points
    224 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    So were are we with the choice of ban or not to ban, control or not

    Can we not reach agreement on this
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  5. #380
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,745
    Rep Power
    66
    Points
    7,902 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by claud3 View Post
    So were are we with the choice of ban or not to ban, control or not

    Can we not reach agreement on this
    Actually this is not bout guns, it about a new form of dictatorship using sympathy to control people.

  6. #381
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    42,328 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    what is it that you want me to revise? the idea that the constitution isn't outdated on this matter because its been upheld in court?

    to be fair i don't really follow US politics or law anymore at all, but i've already addressed the point. laws are there to counterbalance rights. i never said the government gave you your rights - but in reality they do affect them through statutory law. as they should. if we left it to courts we be stuck with the status quo, as they tend to work off precedent far more than anything else.

    they, like your legislative and executive, are unable to change the framework within which gun use and ownership is allowed because of the hysteria that would follow from changing what is seen as an infallible document. it doesn't mean that your constitution is not wrong on this.



    and as to the picture - i would've thought that, having dealt with the relevant authorities on this personally, you'd seriously struggle to get your firearms inspector to sign off on that weapon, regardless of its legality. its not a simple case of "this is legal". either way, it would have to be locked in separate gun cabinets (if you can split it) in different parts of the house. it really isn't comparable. in fact, it just demonstrates good gun legislation. you couldn't have that lying around your house, and in fact you'd struggle to have one *despite* it being legal.
    Tell me, if the Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the USA, then who should be. Their job is judge the constitutionality of the laws passed.

    If you can't go by their words/decisions, then what is left to go by?


    I'm going to quote myself on a post i've made elsewhere:

    The founding fathers were men, who had flaws like every other human. But they do not get the credit they deserve for the foresight they possessed. They realized people with flawed lines of thinking existed and would be a threat to people's rights in the future.

    See society is flawed. They believe that with the progress of time they become smarter and wiser as a whole than previous generations. They think that they know best and old laws written in different times have no bearing on their modern/contemporary world. The problem is you cannot keep on changing our basic tenets of governance without eroding the original rights enumerated in our constitution.

    No they realized that their document could not cover every possible scenario so they allowed for a mechanism to amend the constitution in the future. But they did not make the process simple so that the system would not be abused, it would take a real consensus and majority agreement to have an amendment pass.

    Furthermore while the option is available, they never intended for the first 10 amendments (our enumerated bill of rights) to be modified or repealed. They are supposed to exist forever as is. Because if they were to be modified the likelihood of any of them not being infringed in some way is almost nonexistent.

    In the 224 years since our constitution was ratified, it has only been amended 27 times (really 25 if you take out prohibition related amendments).

    That goes to show how little our constitution needed to be modified since its ratification and the wisdom of our founding fathers that helped to craft it.

    I don't why you are so fixated on attempting to treat the symptoms (tools used to commit crime like guns) rather than the disease. (the reasons that cause people to do such things)




    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    They cost 900 LOL
    What is so funny about that?

  7. #382
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Tell me, if the Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the USA, then who should be. Their job is judge the constitutionality of the laws passed.

    If you can't go by their words/decisions, then what is left to go by?
    there's an interesting phrase. you don't see the problem of scrutinising gun laws, when those laws are fundamentally a part of the document that all law is compared to? you don't see any conflict there, or potential to write off sensible discussion or legislation as fundamentally "unconstitutional"?

    add in the pressure applied from interest groups, the political opportunity to attack "big government", and the idealistic notion that the constitution should be the immovable rock that your nation stands upon, then no, i don't see the supreme court as being the be all and end all of the discussion. which is why you have two other branches of government.

    i see attacks like this one potentially motivating your population to encourage one of the other branches to reconisder gun laws. but i'm not going to hold my breath, for the reasons given above.

    but that doesn't mean that gun reform is wrong. it just means it won't happen.



    I don't why you are so fixated on attempting to treat the symptoms (tools used to commit crime like guns) rather than the disease. (the reasons that cause people to do such things)
    a gun is not a symptom. and licensing laws, to use your analogy, treat people if applied correctly, not weapons. why do you think we have inspections in the UK? it isn't to see if the gun is in good working order, or to make sure it is still in the correct household, its to see if the owner is taking the care and responsibility required to own such a weapon.

    to suggest that the route to solve this is to 'fix' human nature is rather misplaced. you will always have people with problems, that can't control themselves, that enjoy violence. you will not fix that.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 23:44.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  8. #383
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,608
    Rep Power
    125
    Points
    224 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    We are just going round on each other, trying to seek a logical answer to this

    And yet we all end up at the same point.... We want a solution to this gun issue, but we can not agree to how to find that solution on a level playing field... Until a solution is agreed upon

    We will always end up at this point.... What's the answer because I want to solve this as much has you all do
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  9. Likes Admartian likes this post
  10. #384
    Elite Member
    TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    n00 y4wk
    Age
    19
    Posts
    1,502
    Rep Power
    37
    Points
    3,937 (0 Banked)


    I don't normally incite violence against people, but I desperately want a gunman to shoot these pigs to death.
    Thanks to Kwesnoth for the sig!



    TheCinemaJack Movie Reviews!

  11. #385
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by reasonable_doubt View Post
    Actually this is not bout guns, it about a new form of dictatorship using sympathy to control people.
    this is exactly the twisted logic i was talking about. owning a gun doesn't protect you from tyranny, and controlling them doesn't lead to it.

    and besides, democracy, with capitalism, is probably the most refined system of control ever created.

    its the best option to people, but if you think western governments would prefer a dictatorship, i want some of what you are smoking.

    Quote Originally Posted by claud3 View Post
    We are just going round on each other, trying to seek a logical answer to this

    And yet we all end up at the same point.... We want a solution to this gun issue, but we can not agree to how to find that solution on a level playing field... Until a solution is agreed upon

    We will always end up at this point.... What's the answer because I want to solve this as much has you all do
    the answer is there. people just don't want to hear it because it goes against their history and culture. which is fair enough, but that is their choice. i don't look down on it, i just disagree with people that say gun control is completely without merit. its not a zero sum game. its not 'all or nothing', and its not the start of a dictatorship . these are just ideas that are used to benefit certain groups or support certain beliefs, regardless of their validity.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-18-2012 at 00:24.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  12. #386
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    42,328 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    there's an interesting phrase. you don't see the problem of scrutinising gun laws, when those laws are fundamentally a part of the document that all law is compared to? you don't see any conflict there, or potential to write off sensible discussion or legislation as fundamentally "unconstitutional"?

    add in the pressure applied from interest groups, the political opportunity to attack "big government", and the idealistic notion that the constitution should be the immovable rock that your nation stands upon, then no, i don't see the supreme court as being the be all and end all of the discussion. which is why you have two other branches of government.

    i see attacks like this one potentially motivating your population to encourage one of the other branches to reconisder gun laws. but i'm not going to hold my breath, for the reasons given above.

    but that doesn't mean that gun reform is wrong. it just means it won't happen.





    a gun is not a symptom. and licensing laws, to use your analogy, treat people if applied correctly, not weapons. why do you think we have inspections in the UK? it isn't to see if the gun is in good working order, or to make sure it is still in the correct household, its to see if the owner is taking the care and responsibility required to own such a weapon.

    to suggest that the route to solve this is to 'fix' human nature is rather misplaced. you will always have people with problems, that can't control themselves, that enjoy violence. you will not fix that.
    What are you taking about? There have been many gun laws that have been judged at various levels of the judiciary.

    Each branch of out govt. has its own specified roles. Through these roles they check and balance each other branch. But that does not mean that the branches can take over roles traditionally held by another branch.

    summary:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...s_Constitution


    Gun control (beyond existing laws) is not only wrong because it likely infringes on a citizens rights, but also because it is not sound or effective.

    Why am I opposed to further gun control laws (beyond what currently exists) aside from their unconstitutionality?

    Quoting myself again:

    I have yet to see any kind of gun control regulations that are reasonable/make sense (based on facts and not irrational fears/hate) and will actually work.

    Which is why I find the discussion pointless. People resort to emotion instead of facts and logic when discussing such matters, which makes the entire thing pointless.

    It doesn't help that 99% of people have no $#@!ing idea what they are talking about (and yes that even applies to some gun owners as well) regarding the topic of gun control.

    As for the second part of your post:

    Are you really telling me it is human nature to kill each other? Guns are a symptom. You take them away and people will still commit violent crimes with other weapons/through other means. The weapons do no corrupt or compel an individual to commit these crimes. Other issues do. We need to focus on these issues if we want to properly address/solve the issue. Gun control is a ineffective band aid that just makes people feel good while scapegoating guns as the cause of the problem when they are not.

    We have a pretty good (contemporary) example of it being passed in the US and having no tangible effect at all (in terms of reducing violent crime with guns).

    Gun control punishes the many (law abiding citizens) for the acts of a few. And does nothing to curb access to criminals (in this case people with previous records of crime).


    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    this is exactly the twisted logic i was talking about. owning a gun doesn't protect you from tyranny, and controlling them doesn't lead to it.

    and besides, democracy, with capitalism, is probably the most refined system of control ever created.

    its the best option to people, but if you think western governments would prefer a dictatorship, i want some of what you are smoking.



    the answer is there. people just don't want to hear it because it goes against their history and culture. which is fair enough, but that is their choice.
    If that is true then why do tyrannical govt.'s restrict or eliminate gun ownership?


  13. #387
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,608
    Rep Power
    125
    Points
    224 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TRF View Post


    I don't normally incite violence against people, but I desperately want a gunman to shoot these pigs to death.
    This is why I want to become a baby again, because back then

    All I had to do is make noise and $#@! and piss my nappy
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  14. #388
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    What are you taking about? There have been many gun laws that have been judged at various levels of the judiciary.

    Each branch of out govt. has its own specified roles. Through these roles they check and balance each other branch. But that does not mean that the branches can take over roles traditionally held by another branch.

    summary:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...s_Constitution


    Gun control (beyond existing laws) is not only wrong because it likely infringes on a citizens rights, but also because it is not sound or effective.

    Why am I opposed to further gun control laws (beyond what currently exists) aside from their unconstitutionality?

    Quoting myself again:




    As for the second part of your post:

    Are you really telling me it is human nature to kill each other? Guns are a symptom. You take them away and people will still commit violent crimes with other weapons/through other means. The weapons do no corrupt or compel an individual to commit these crimes. Other issues do. We need to focus on these issues if we want to properly address/solve the issue. Gun control is a ineffective band aid that just makes people feel good while scapegoating guns as the cause of the problem when they are not.

    We have a pretty good (contemporary) example of it being passed in the US and having no tangible effect at all (in terms of reducing violent crime with guns).

    Gun control punishes the many (law abiding citizens) for the acts of a few. And does nothing to curb access to criminals (in this case people with previous records of crime).




    If that is true then why do tyrannical govt.'s restrict or eliminate gun ownership?




    i'm going to just disagree with you and leave it at that. i don't care that much. i live in a country that proves gun legislation can be effective without becoming a dictatorship, and does have an impact on the type of crimes that occur. your logic is flawed.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-18-2012 at 00:32.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  15. #389
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    42,328 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    i'm going to just disagree with you and leave it at that. i don't care that much. i live in a country that proves gun legislation can be effective without becoming a dictatorship, and does have an impact on the type of crimes that occur. your logic is flawed.
    What works in one country, does not necessarily work in another. And while your legislation might have had an effect on gun crime, other forms of criminal activity (typically violent) have increased since such legislation passed.

  16. #390
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,608
    Rep Power
    125
    Points
    224 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    So the stand your ground law

    Whats that $#@!ing for... A chance to limit the amount of black kids on the streets..

    Not all black kids are thieves of cars, rapist, murders, drug dealers

    Oh I get it, they are a different color...

    $#@! that....

    Stand your ground law, is taking the right to bare arms

    That wee bit to far
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  17. #391
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    What works in one country, does not necessarily work in another. And while your legislation might have had an effect on gun crime, other forms of criminal activity (typically violent) have increased since such legislation passed.
    you'll never know because you'll never try.

    and that 'stat' there is misleading. you can't use criminal activity levels in the early 1900s as a defense.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-18-2012 at 00:52.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  18. #392
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    42,328 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by claud3 View Post
    So the stand your ground law

    Whats that $#@!ing for... A chance to limit the amount of black kids on the streets..

    Not all black kids are thieves of cars, rapist, murders, drug dealers

    Oh I get it, they are a different color...

    $#@! that....

    Stand your ground law, is taking the right to bare arms

    That wee bit to far


    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    you'll never know because you'll never try.

    and that 'stat' there is misleading. you can't use criminal activity levels at the begining of the 1900s as a defense.
    At the federal level we had an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. States have enacted various levels of gun control laws as they have seen fit. We have studies examine the effects of these laws to determine their effectiveness. At best they can attribute no solid correlation to strict gun control laws to significant reduction in violent crime (especially those committed with guns). At worst they have been shown to make things even worse.

  19. #393
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    23
    Posts
    15,948
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    105,482 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    you'll never know because you'll never try.

    and that 'stat' there is misleading. you can't use criminal activity levels in the early 1900s as a defense.
    And where do you live?


  20. #394
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,608
    Rep Power
    125
    Points
    224 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Reality is a strange thing... When a stand your ground law is given to a nation of gun owners

    Where is in other countries we have organizations called criminals that do the killings for us

    But the states is an organization of country crime land mass...

    Guns in hands and death to innocents

    What next a change your ways law and going straight law
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  21. #395
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    10 years is hardly very long when your nation is awash with guns. and banning assault rifles, but not pistols, and then having a disjointed state approach to weapons is hardly likely to be effective.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  22. #396
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    42,328 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    10 years is hardly very long when your nation is awash with guns. and banning assault rifles, but not pistols, and then having a disjointed state approach to weapons is hardly likely to be effective.
    We have more than enough evidence to know that it does not work in the US. Maybe in another country with less guns in circulation, no comparable gun culture, significantly different demographics and various general cultural differences. But not it the US.

  23. #397
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    And where do you live?
    the uk.

    i'll admit that we're in a much easier position, because our gun laws have been in place for over 100 years, but it is generally because when we have had a disaster (dunblane, hungerford) we've altered the licencing laws accordingly.

    you can count our masacres on one hand, and regardless of violent crime stats, that is important.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  24. #398
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,879
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    13,566 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by claud3 View Post
    So the stand your ground law

    Whats that $#@!ing for... A chance to limit the amount of black kids on the streets..

    Not all black kids are thieves of cars, rapist, murders, drug dealers

    Oh I get it, they are a different color...

    $#@! that....

    Stand your ground law, is taking the right to bare arms

    That wee bit to far
    first that is reaching for straws.

    Second a court, with a jury, who viewed all the evidence that you and I will never see found him innocent.

    third with so many people carrying guns if you had one and was jumped that's what you would go for to make sure you walked away alive. It is a self defense law. Your life vs their life.

    fourth he was not a KID he was and ADULT.
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  25. #399
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    6,603 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    We have more than enough evidence to know that it does not work in the US. Maybe in another country with less guns in circulation, no comparable gun culture, significantly different demographics and various general cultural differences. But not it the US.
    but what is the problem with tightening gun laws? i don't see why its seen in such a negative light? its not illogical to require a licence and to keep the weapon secure. it may not work for the time being, because of those in circulation as you said, but its hardly going to cause any harm. and you can then spend the next 50 years trying to remove those that are illegally in circulation.

    i really don't see the problem.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  26. #400
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,978
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    42,328 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    but what is the problem with tightening gun laws? i don't see why its seen in such a negative light? its not illogical to require a licence and to keep the weapon secure. it may not work for the time being, because of those in circulation as you said, but its hardly going to cause any harm. and you can then spend the next 50 years trying to remove those that are illegally in circulation.

    i really don't see the problem.
    So basically you are saying because it can't make things worse (when we have evidence that is contrary to this point, but lets ignore it for a second) we should do it anyways just because?

    Nevermind the effect it has on infringing/eliminating peoples second amendment rights. Or the economic effect it will have on gun manufacturers, guns stores, ammunition manufacturers and companies that make various kinds of gun accessories.

    Finally we have the financial effects it has on gun owners being forced to give up their arms/ammunition for no compensation (or a pittance at best).


    Sure that sounds like an excellent idea, lets get right on that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

PSU

Playstation Universe

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.
Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.