dayman Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 What is an assault weapon & what is the benefit of banning it? Whatever the law would define it as. You can debate what's fair and not I don't care. Just look up the old law for one although IMO could easily go tougher.
/dev/null Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 What is an assault weapon & what is the benefit of banning it? Whatever the law would define it as. You can debate what's fair and not I don't care. Just look up the old law for one although IMO could easily go tougher. A couple months ago I was cutting some limbs off the tree in my back yard. I'd cut the limbs down than cut up into smaller pieces for easier disposal. I wasn't trying to cut them up into anything fancy. But as I'm cutting up the tree limbs I notice one that was like 2 feet long and had like 3 or 4 branches on it that I had cut off. Looked kind of like a mace and was pretty well balanced so I kept it Now if I clubbed either of you upside the head with that chunk of wood that I cut down from the tree in my back yard, would that not qualify as an assault weapon?
Park Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) A couple months ago I was cutting some limbs off the tree in my back yard. I'd cut the limbs down than cut up into smaller pieces for easier disposal. I wasn't trying to cut them up into anything fancy. But as I'm cutting up the tree limbs I notice one that was like 2 feet long and had like 3 or 4 branches on it that I had cut off. Looked kind of like a mace and was pretty well balanced so I kept it Now if I clubbed either of you upside the head with that chunk of wood that I cut down from the tree in my back yard, would that not qualify as an assault weapon? Oh I get it, so your little club is just as dangerous as a semi-automatic rifle....ya, that sure makes a lot of sense. Edited July 21, 2012 by Park
Adam Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Oh I get it, so your little club is just as dangerous as a semi-automatic rifle....ya, that sure makes a lot of sense. Hmmm, that's not what I got out of it. Sure, a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what types of weapons a civilian can have, but that line isn't so easy to draw. I have so little knowledge of weapons, I wouldn't even guess where that line should be.
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Oh I get it, so your little club is just as dangerous as a semi-automatic rifle....ya, that sure makes a lot of sense. No you don't get it Dave The weapon is only as dangerous as the person wielding it
Adam Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 No you don't get it Dave The weapon is only as dangerous as the person wielding it In some cases yes, in others no. But it is the responsibility of the owner to make sure that nobody weilds that weapon that shouldn't be.
Park Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 No you don't get it Dave The weapon is only as dangerous as the person wielding it Come on dude, that's such a stupid thing to say. You are like the guy in the joke who brings a knife to a gun fight. You. Ron Paulers can't seem to. Understand there are different shades of gray,
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 In some cases yes, in others no. But it is the responsibility of the owner to make sure that nobody weilds that weapon that shouldn't be. Oh you are so close to getting it. C'mon dude, take that next step
Adam Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Oh you are so close to getting it. C'mon dude, take that next step I don't know what you are referring to. I was referring to the specific example of a parent being responsible for storing the firearm in a place where their kids can't get at it, nothing more. Regardless of which side of the argument one stands on, the prospect of a child accidentally firing a gun is terrifying.
dayman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 We should legalize all weapons. It's the responsibility of the owner to make sure their chemical weapon is for recreational gassing only. People kill people. I think I get it now. Freedom is amazing.
Adam Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 We should legalize all weapons. It's the responsibility of the owner to make sure their chemical weapon is for recreational gassing only. People kill people. I think I get it now. Freedom is amazing. LOL
dayman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) Oh wait I think I just clicked back. My reign as libertarian on weapons is over it's probably not a good idea to have chemical weapons. I think they can kill too many people too easily and create mass murder every few years at least. Not just murder but ya know, like mass murder. There is the second amendment though. So I guess it's reasonable to just see it as a line drawing problem. But in any event firing off 100+ rounds a minute is clearly on the good side of that line. I would put the line at 1000 bullets a minute. Or maybe all bullets are fine and just explosions. IDK it's heady stuff. Is the question what do I need to protect myself or what do I need to overthrow my government? I may need Doctor Evil powers to make the US government kneel ... so I may actually need nukes. Oh **** I'm back to libertarian. God it feel good to understand freedom. Although I must admit, I feel like a prisoner in my own country now. Sucks. Wish I was stupid again, I could just embrace the tender hold of Obama keeping me from my nuclear arms. I'll have to settle for heavy armor and an AR-15 and a few of my most rowdy buddies I guess. Live free or die. Edited July 22, 2012 by TheNewBills
Adam Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Oh wait I think I just clicked back. My reign as libertarian on weapons is over it's probably not a good idea to have chemical weapons. I think they can kill too many people too easily and create mass murder every few years at least. Not just murder but ya know, like mass murder. There is the second amendment though. So I guess it's reasonable to just see it as a line drawing problem. But in any event firing off 100+ rounds a minute is clearly on the good side of that line. I would put the line at 1000 bullets a minute. Or maybe all bullets are fine and just explosions. IDK it's heady stuff. Is the question what do I need to protect myself or what do I need to overthrow my government? I may need Doctor Evil powers to make the US government kneel ... so I may actually need nukes. Oh **** I'm back to libertarian. God it feel good to understand freedom. Although I must admit, I feel like a prisoner in my own country now. Sucks. Wish I was stupid again, I could just embrace the tender hold of Obama keeping me from my nuclear arms. I'll have to settle for heavy armor and an AR-15 and a few of my most rowdy buddies I guess. Live free or die. keep your chemical weapons and give me a halberd.
....lybob Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 As a progressive I think the government should buy everyone bullet proof amour and helmets that every man women and child must wear when they leave the comfort of their homes- in case of a bullet strike the amour would automatically call 911 with GPS coordinates- OK problem solved next.
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 I don't know what you are referring to. I was referring to the specific example of a parent being responsible for storing the firearm in a place where their kids can't get at it, nothing more. Regardless of which side of the argument one stands on, the prospect of a child accidentally firing a gun is terrifying. Oh so close. But then you had to whip out the For the Children! argument, then you fell so far behind With rights come responsibilities
dayman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 As a progressive I think the government should buy everyone bullet proof amour and helmets that every man women and child must wear when they leave the comfort of their homes- in case of a bullet strike the amour would automatically call 911 with GPS coordinates- OK problem solved next. As a libertarian I think sound monetary policy would enable us all to buy our own gas masks b/c we'll all be rich. Gas away mad man. I laughing my ass off. It is more difficult to drink beer now but soon the market will allocate resources to this problem and I'll be drunk and safe as money can buy
Adam Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Oh so close. But then you had to whip out the For the Children! argument, then you fell so far behind With rights come responsibilities I agree with that statement. If a gun owner wants to leave a loaded gun on the desk, they shouldn't have kids. Of they keep it locked up, where the kids can't get at it, that's great. Guns are a necessary evil, until the day comes where the bad guys can't get them.
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Oh wait I think I just clicked back. My reign as libertarian on weapons is over it's probably not a good idea to have chemical weapons. I think they can kill too many people too easily and create mass murder every few years at least. Not just murder but ya know, like mass murder. There is the second amendment though. So I guess it's reasonable to just see it as a line drawing problem. But in any event firing off 100+ rounds a minute is clearly on the good side of that line. I would put the line at 1000 bullets a minute. Or maybe all bullets are fine and just explosions. IDK it's heady stuff. Is the question what do I need to protect myself or what do I need to overthrow my government? I may need Doctor Evil powers to make the US government kneel ... so I may actually need nukes. Oh **** I'm back to libertarian. God it feel good to understand freedom. Although I must admit, I feel like a prisoner in my own country now. Sucks. Wish I was stupid again, I could just embrace the tender hold of Obama keeping me from my nuclear arms. I'll have to settle for heavy armor and an AR-15 and a few of my most rowdy buddies I guess. Live free or die. If at any time somebody gets access to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons they are now eligible for billions in aid from the US Government As a new Libertarian you should see the flaw in the above argument. A Progressive would welcome the additional funding for oppressed individuals standing up to the American Empire
dayman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 If at any time somebody gets access to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons they are now eligible for billions in aid from the US Government As a new Libertarian you should see the flaw in the above argument. A Progressive would welcome the additional funding for oppressed individuals standing up to the American Empire I see the flaw. The coolest part about being libertarian now is the world is my oyster. It's like a giant debate club w/ unknowable facts that nobody can agree on and people with different priorities and life experiences/outlooks but I have this magic formula I can just apply to anything. I really don't need to do much thinking to get in the game about how I see any situation, I don't have to think about conflicting facts and I don't even have to be perceived as taking a mainstream candidate's side who will inevitably disappoint me. Just take in whatever is being said in real time, process the formula, and come out right every single damn time. It's awesome.
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 I see the flaw. The coolest part about being libertarian now is the world is my oyster. It's like a giant debate club w/ unknowable facts that nobody can agree on and people with different priorities and life experiences/outlooks but I have this magic formula I can just apply to anything. I really don't need to do much thinking to get in the game about how I see any situation, I don't have to think about conflicting facts and I don't even have to be perceived as taking a mainstream candidate's side who will inevitably disappoint me. Just take in whatever is being said in real time, process the formula, and come out right every single damn time. It's awesome. Wait, so you're a Libertarian now? If you can do that, I want to be the boards new Progressive You're a Racist Winning!
Recommended Posts