Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
And for the record If confiscating guns would feed more people, and help economic improvement I would do it in a heart beat.

Whats awesome is how that that statement has absolutely nothing to do with anything, yet is terrifying.
Oh and I am sure you would in your hypothetical. But then again, in your hypothetical, I'd shoot you in the face for trying.

It has to do with everything, the entire reason we started this conversation was the fact you and others in this thread have used the constitution to stamp out any possibility of resolving the issue.

If you unironically believe that the solution to our current problems is to stick to what got us into this situation you are hurting more than your helping. The second amendment is a thing only as far as the people who enforce it care to do so, and with public opinion turning against fire arms proliferation you might find yourself supreme court ruled out of your "guns" as it were.

By your logic, Eisenhower is not only a terrifying person, but one of those gun control lefties you hate so much:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

-Dwight D Eisenhower.

Pray tell me, who is the better authority on how much guns are waste of human resources. You, me, or the man who led the western world's armies against Hitler.

he was talking about the military. Christ read a book not the internet for once.

Wow. Way to take that quote completely out of context. I didn't realize the univerisity of Phoenix had an ROTC program.

@Daedalus @ Whembly, thanks for the help & offers. I will get back to you, I just grabbed some hosting for this and other projects.

 sebster wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Taking the cake anology:

Gun grabbers had been grabbing slices of our 2A cake for some time now. Just as they were at the cusp of taking the last slices, gun owners woke up, slapped the greedy lil hands of the gun grabbers and told them to pound sand. Hence the wailing from the gun grabbers side.

There can be no compromise where demonstrably, the other side wants you gone.

All you did was repeat the cake analogy, in a poorer form that it was originally posted.

And yes, some Americans want a total ban on guns, but go look up the polls. They're a tiny fraction of a percent. They are as irrelevant as the people who want legalised nuclear weapons. Simply declaring those people representative of the whole of the other side is hopelessly simplistic, and makes a sensible view of the realities of gun control absolutely impossible.

Actually, youre the one who took an old anti-gun control analogy and royally screwed it up:

Sorry mate that quote is talking about the military and war. It doesn't really apply to your average citizen owning a weapon.

 Frazzled wrote:
They are trying to confiscate guns in Connecticut as well but having problems as no one is complying.

Yes, I think it's barely 1% compliance.

What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?

 carlos13th wrote:
What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?

No machine guns, no greeners ( shotgun/rifle combo althugh that seems to have been gotten around). Some other stuff. Also it declared America Hurr you penny ante potrait artist with a bad moustache!

 Frazzled wrote:
They are trying to confiscate guns in Connecticut as well but having problems as no one is complying.

That's because noone is getting serious jail time if they refuse give up there illegal possessions.

I have a lot less sympathy for a man who refuses to give up his fire arm (Which is designed to cause physical harm and death to other people) than a man who refuses to give up his pot (which is only dangerous if he disobeys the law and smokes it while driving or before driving)

and before you give me the old run around by suggesting that a legally owned fire arm will not be used for evil any more than pot would I will say this:

Cars accidentally kill people yes, but we are working on ways to make cars safer, cars are not designed to kill people

Guns accidentally kill people, but we are working on ways to make guns more deadly, guns are designed to kill people.

People are legislating gun control because guns are only getting deadlier, and I don't know about you but there's no way to sell the proliferation of ever increasingly deadlier weapons.

The idea you must have a gun to be safe is a dated concept, and the more we cling to the idea we need guns to treat each other right the more we slide backwards in societal progression.

Says the guy who never had a stalker and had a police captain tell his wife she needed to be armed at all times.

 carlos13th wrote:
What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?

FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was a socialist democrat president who wanted to control the ability of the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. Originally, he wanted to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners raised concern, Congress attempted to satiate the gun grabbers by scaling down FDR’s proposal to allow only a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which at the time were thought to be weapons only a gangster would use with no real usefulness for self-defense by the average citizen.

So, the tax was levied at $200 ($3,478.64 in 2013 dollars) which at the time was an exorbitant amount - remember, the Stock Market crash of 1929 had just occurred and this tax took the ability away of the average citizen with little means to purchase such weapons.

This NFA act of 1934 did NOTHING (as do the current gun control laws) to provide for the public safety. It was, as it always has been, an exercise of control

The issue of gun control as well as things like the ATF (now BATF) and the NFA is convoluted and many times, contradictory in accomplishing it's stated intent.

 cincydooley wrote:
Wow. Way to take that quote completely out of context. I didn't realize the univerisity of Phoenix had an ROTC program.

Pray tell me how I should take the quote of a man who advocated for more spending on social programs versus military programs because he saw much in WW2, enough to convince him continuing the cycle of destruction will just result in more people going hungry as we dedicate more to arming our selves in fear in an ever increasing race to beat the other guys destructive potential.

Again with the insults, and of course, no actual refuting of my claims with evidence and commentary.

barring of course your little tirade on how "America is the bestest country evah" with zero self awareness of how your addressing someone who is speaking outside the norm by literally telling them to shut up and get back in line like America operates like some sort of excelptionalist hive mind.

The idea you think the founders were not politicians gives me a chuckle, I guess the insane gak throwing contest John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had was all in good fun.

 Alexzandvar wrote:


Guns accidentally kill people, but we are working on ways to make guns more deadly, guns are designed to kill people.

No, they don't. "Accidental" gun deaths are irresponsible ownership deaths; they aren't accidents.

People are legislating gun control because guns are only getting deadlier, and I don't know about you but there's no way to sell the proliferation of ever increasingly deadlier weapons.

Getting deadlier? Not the ones that the general populace can use. My AR frame rifle is no more deadly than a WWII M1 Garand. And hell, one of the most common officers pistol, the 1911, is effectively unchanged.

But by all means keep making things up.

Military programs vs. civilian ownership. Quit while you're behind already.

 Frazzled wrote:
Military programs vs. civilian ownership. Quit while you're behind already.

The kid is just doing this for attention. NO ONE can be this dense

 Alexzandvar wrote:

The idea you think the founders were not politicians gives me a chuckle, I guess the insane gak throwing contest John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had was all in good fun.

They all became politicians. Prior to being members of the Constitutional congress, very few of them made their livings as politicians, as people do today. There were a bunch of lawyers and merchants and bankers and plantation owners. There were few that made their coin from public office, but they were in the minority.

 Frazzled wrote:
Says the guy who never had a stalker and had a police captain tell his wife she needed to be armed at all times.

Most of the country is not being stalked.

When two kids are kicking the crap out of each other with their fists you don't run up to them and give them baseball bats hoping they will suddenly decide to stop despite the fact you just empowered them to visit even more harm on the other.

You stop the kids, sit them down, and you tell them that it's not acceptable in society to use force to demand politeness. And if they continue to misbehave you send them to time out.

I think it's far more terrifying that you think humanity is so utterly hopeless we need the threat of violence hanging over our heads at all times to behave like civilized people.

EDIT: I have to stop. This guy has to be a troll looking to get people started then report them. Wow just wow. Where's my daughter to smack him around with her cutting off hand remarks when you need her purple headed keister?

There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home.
OK time to calm myself with the song of the Great Wienie. Time to go to my happy place.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

The idea you think the founders were not politicians gives me a chuckle, I guess the insane gak throwing contest John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had was all in good fun.

They all became politicians. Prior to being members of the Constitutional congress, very few of them made their livings as politicians, as people do today. There were a bunch of lawyers and merchants and bankers and plantation owners. There were few that made their coin from public office, but they were in the minority.

Actually when they kicked off the rev war most of them refused to pull from their own coffers to support the war effort, so that shoots down any I idea our founders weren't as greedy as everyone else is.

You also made the argument that politicians are inherently bad, so you concede that by your logic our founding fathers are scumbags.

Also, if you want proof human ingenuity always finds a way to kill more of their fellow man faster I would refer to the magazine picture near the start of the thread.

Scream that I'm trolling or dense all you want but public opinion says my way, and as I said before, the basic idea that we should restrict guns is not based in stats or in murders but in the idea that it's a fething waste of an investment that could do far more good some were else.

Think of it as a society wide sequester .

But go on you scamps, scurry to your stats on guns in an attempt to justify death and destruction.

I rest easy at least knowing that I will live to see the day a man is judged not on the weapon or force he carries, but on his manner and how he conducts himself.

 Alexzandvar wrote:


Actually when they kicked off the rev war most of them refused to pull from their own coffers to support the war effort, so that shoots down any I idea our founders weren't as greedy as everyone else is.

Which has to do with what, exactly?

You also made the argument that politicians are inherently bad, so you concede that by your logic our founding fathers are scumbags.

Absolutely did not say that. I said that when "politician" became a job title one strived to attain and not a civic duty that our republic became less "of the people and for the people". There's no judgement loaded there at all

Also, if you want proof human ingenuity always finds a way to kill more of their fellow man faster I would refer to the magazine picture near the start of the thread.

Or driving bombs into buildings or crashing planes into towers or setting off explosives at marathons.... None of which involved firearms.

.

I rest easy at least knowing that I will live to see the day a man is judged not on the weapon or force he carries, but on his manner and how he conducts himself.

You understand that you're going to be forced to get some basic marksmanship skills as a part of ROTC, right? Or are you going to refuse that? Please, elaborate.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Wish you were in the States then. Places like CA, NY (NYC) are seeing confiscation take place. THAT is the reality you seem to be missing.

Some types of firearms in some states being banned is nowhere near a total ban.

 sebster wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Wish you were in the States then. Places like CA, NY (NYC) are seeing confiscation take place. THAT is the reality you seem to be missing.

Some types of firearms in some states being banned is nowhere near a total ban.

Plays hell with your rebuttal of the slippery slope argument though.

 sebster wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Wish you were in the States then. Places like CA, NY (NYC) are seeing confiscation take place. THAT is the reality you seem to be missing.

Some types of firearms in some states being banned is nowhere near a total ban.

The hilarious ridiculousness of all of these confiscations is that they're taking guns that are involved in a teeny tiny portion of the gun crime. Makes no sense. I like to believe that if enforcement and penalties were harsher for illegally possessing a handgun (which most gun crime is perpetuated with) we'd see some decline, but I sadly doubt it.

I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.

I don't know anything about the CA ones though.

The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.

Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.

Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.


And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Actually, youre the one who took an old anti-gun control analogy and royally screwed it up:

No, once again... you did nothing but repeat the basic premise of the argument as it had already been posted... albeit you did it in less convincingly language.

I attempted to expand on the analogy, question whether the relationship was inherently antagonistic, or if there wasn't some middle ground that both sides could find. A person may or may not agree with that suggestion, and they could certainly argue that it isn't just gun activists that have a responsibility for finding that middle ground (and I'd agree on that point), but you can't say I screwed the analogy up.

I mean, if you want I can explain to you that the cake represents guns, and that the cake owners is the collective group of gun owners, and the person taking repeated pieces of the cake is the anti-gun movement. And then I can explain that in my analogy the parts of the cake that the person doesn't really want are the elements of gun law that are fiercely protected by gun owners but have little actual value to gun owners (absence of background checks, exclusions through gun shows etc).

But then, I'm pretty confident you didn't actually fail to understand any of that the first time. You just found it easier to say 'nuh uh you screwed the analogy up' than to actually, you know, type out a sensible response.

 Ouze wrote:
I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.

I thought that was truly debunked... o.O

My google-fu is weak right now.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.

Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.

Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.


And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.

Classic example of a troll post. Has nothing to do with anything except designed to inflame.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The kid is just doing this for attention. NO ONE can be this dense

You just finished a post in which you concluded that gun restrictions are all about control of the populace and not safety, so I'd be careful about who you choose to write off.