Matrix Games Forums

I was sort of enjoying the discussion. But if you guys don't want to discuss things rationally I guess there's no point in continuing?

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I was sort of enjoying the discussion. But if you guys don't want to discuss things rationally I guess there's no point in continuing.

Really? Rationally? Like circumventing the Second Amendment?

I am making an absurd point. One as absurd as saying citizens have no need for an "assault" rifle. It is not the place of anyone, especially the government, to tell us what kind of gun we can own. I am talking guns sir, not grenade launchers, not tanks...so don't harp on that tired argument.

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I was sort of enjoying the discussion. But if you guys don't want to discuss things rationally I guess there's no point in continuing.

Really? Rationally? Like circumventing the Second Amendment?

I am making an absurd point. One as absurd as saying citizens have no need for an "assault" rifle. It is not the place of anyone, especially the government, to tell us what kind of gun we can own. I am talking guns sir, not grenade launchers, not tanks...so don't harp on that tired argument.

What about full automatic? Are you talking those or no?

Pay your tax stamp and you can have one.

Q.E.D.

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Pay your tax stamp and you can have one.

Q.E.D.

So if they end up getting banned would I get to say "They are banned Q.E.D?" Or does it not work that way?

I was saying that they are legal.
 
You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Oh Eye the Noo Ye Kan'e touch this hoots mon

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I was saying that they are legal.

You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression but I know of people who have full auto weapons under license. I used to go to a shooting range with my dad when I was a kid and witnessed a couple guys with full auto M-16s shooting up targets myself. Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I was saying that they are legal.

You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression but I know of people who have full auto weapons under license. I used to go to a shooting range with my dad when I was a kid and witnessed a couple guys with full auto M-16s shooting up targets myself. Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]

I don't think it's as simple as havin a couple hundred dollars and going to do it over the weekend.

Here is a set where the question was brought up and answered:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332506

Looks like at best it will take 90 days or more, set you back several hundred dollars for the stamp, and actually purchasing a weapon could set you back thousands of dollars.

Seems like beyond the means of many people.
Certainly not practical for someone who is intent on going out spur of the moment to shoot commit a violent criminal act.
And someone who is mentally unstable would likely not pass the BATF required background check or the approval of the local county sheriff.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]

Depends on the state laws in place wherever you may be. Some states ban full auto some don't.

I do find your reasoning in this discussion to be seriously flawed. You're afraid (irrationally in my view) of your fellow armed citizens, so you want to use the government to club them over the head with your point of view and take away their rights. But you fail to see that by doing this you are granting the government powers over the people our founders never intended that the government should have.

While the occasional loon with a gun kills people now and then (admittedly all tragedies in their own right), it comes nowhere near the tragic mass slaughter committed by the occasional loon in charge of a government with the power over its people you want ours to have.

I can think of no other kind of foolishness than to trust in government instead of trusting in the people. A government is not some all knowing benevolent force that just wants to do good. It is simply a system of control over people and attracts to it the worst elements in a society. Give it the control over your life you seem to want it to have and I guarantee you it will come back and bite you on the ass someday.

Jim

the "born alive infant protection act"which he voted against twice while senator.he is the most pro abortion pres.we've ever had "I don't want her punished with a baby"remember that line?
one suggestion to welfare moms and those who can't afford to raise a child while on welfare,food stamps,housing subsidies,free cell phones,ebt,KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER!!!!don't have unprotected sex,oh i forgot i'm supposed to pay for their contraceptives also.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

what i find interesting is that our president is so pro-life when it comes to firearms regulation and talks about "if it saves one life"
what about the 50,000,000 children who've been aborted since roe v wade?
they won't see a birthday or their graduation day as he said in his speech surrounded by children.
the ultimate hypocrite!

[&o]

So we do want to go down this road....OK.

Ummm, abortion is legal. And why would the President, any President, be a hypocrite? Last I looked, SCOTUS decided Roe.

You know what a real hypocrite is in this matter? Those who cry about welfare mothers, abortion, etc, but fail to step up and station themselves at abortion clinics and not only pay for all the care til birth, but support said child till they reach majority.

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I was saying that they are legal.

You were talking like they weren't.  I showed you your error.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression but I know of people who have full auto weapons under license. I used to go to a shooting range with my dad when I was a kid and witnessed a couple guys with full auto M-16s shooting up targets myself. Maybe I was under a misunderstanding thinking that such licenses aren't exactly handed out like theme park coupons? Don't you have to prove some sort of worthiness or something to own them? Or can I simply pick up a couple hundred bucks or whatever it costs and go buy a license any time I want for any reason? [&:]

I don't think it's as simple as havin a couple hundred dollars and going to do it over the weekend.

Here is a set where the question was brought up and answered:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332506

Looks like at best it will take 90 days or more, set you back several hundred dollars for the stamp, and actually purchasing a weapon could set you back thousands of dollars.

Seems like beyond the means of many people.
Certainly not practical for someone who is intent on going out spur of the moment to shoot commit a violent criminal act.
And someone who is mentally unstable would likely not pass the BATF required background check or the approval of the local county sheriff.

Should mentally unstable people be allowed to purchase full auto if they have or come across the means to do so? Suppose they don't have any kind of record, just a bit messed up in their minds, you know, writing the occasional diary entry saying that they want to kill all the XYZs in town or whatever. And if they shouldn't be allowed to purchase full auto, is that an instance of government unjustly contolling these specific individuals even though they've done no recorded harm yet? Is this an instance of the government being unjust to them? Preventing them from making choices they want to make? What about DUI? Should I be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car, completely stoned or whatever? Is the government unjustly controlling my desire to drive while intoxicated? Or what about heroin or cocaine? Surely making those things illegal is just more government interference in my life?

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

the "born alive infant protection act"which he voted against twice while senator.he is the most pro abortion pres.we've ever had "I don't want her punished with a baby"remember that line?
one suggestion to welfare moms and those who can't afford to raise a child while on welfare,food stamps,housing subsidies,free cell phones,ebt,KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER!!!!don't have unprotected sex,oh i forgot i'm supposed to pay for their contraceptives also.

You might want to stress something similiar to middle class high school kids as well then. Some of them occasionally can't keep their legs together either and then what are they supposed to do? Spend the rest of their lives as a single mom raising a kid who was little more than one night's drunken mayhem. Obviously teaching them about contraceptives in high school is wrong and even if it weren't there will still be unwanted pregnancies. I suppose putting the child up for adoption is a possibility but I wonder, if abortion was outlawed, would that create a glutt of children in the adoption market?

ORIGINAL: BASB
So in the US government changes the constitution not the people, here in OZ the government proposes a change and the people get to vote on the change. A majority of the states must agree and I think, but I maybe wrong on this, I think 75% of voters must vote yes to the amendment.

Nope. Both simpler and more complex.

To change the Australian constitution you need to achieve two things in a Referendum ...

1) Achieve a simple majority of the vote (50% + 1 vote)

and

2) Achieve a simple majority of the vote in each of a majority (currently 4 of 6) states.

The majority of Referenda have been rejected. Including two in WW1 which rejected Conscription (which the US just let the gummint do to its citizens ... right to bear arms or not).

The Referenda which passed were those that had bipartisan (often tripartisan, as, occasionally, variant opinion groups, usually from the Conservative side of politics, arose on specific issues) support. No such support = Referenda fails.

Phil

Actually, as I noted in another post, he's wrong. Which undercuts your reply's rationale.

We don't have mob rule in Australia for the very simple reason that to pass a Referendum you have to do two things ... get a simple majority (50% + 1 vote), not the 75% suggested ... but, then, and this is *much* harder, you have to get a simple majority in 4 of the 6 states.

Of the 44 that have been held, only 8 have gotten up, and all of those that did had bipartisan support.

Hardly mob rule.

The reason for the strange rules was deliberately to make it difficult to change the constitution. When the states were considering it (and still today), NSW and Victoria combined had 60% of the population, and the other four states were worried that the provisions protecting their rights and status (and giving them disproportionate bennies to their actual population) could simply be voted out in a Referendum by NSW and Victoria.

Therefore they required the "majority of states" bit ... meaning that at least two of the small population states would have to agree to the change, in effect.

As I said, hardly mob rule.

Phil

The part about abortion? They made it perfectly clear.

Not here.

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

the "born alive infant protection act"which he voted against twice while senator.he is the most pro abortion pres.we've ever had "I don't want her punished with a baby"remember that line?
one suggestion to welfare moms and those who can't afford to raise a child while on welfare,food stamps,housing subsidies,free cell phones,ebt,KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER!!!!don't have unprotected sex,oh i forgot i'm supposed to pay for their contraceptives also.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89



[&o]

So we do want to go down this road....OK.

Ummm, abortion is legal. And why would the President, any President, be a hypocrite? Last I looked, SCOTUS decided Roe.

You know what a real hypocrite is in this matter? Those who cry about welfare mothers, abortion, etc, but fail to step up and station themselves at abortion clinics and not only pay for all the care til birth, but support said child till they reach majority.

Guys-keep it on topic. We've already had a moderator tell us 'no' to the whole abortion thing. Knock it off or you'll get the thread locked. Don't be trolls.

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Are we really that insecure in our modern civilization that a person needs to bar the doors and windows and prepare every day for a shootout at the OK corral? I suppose in the end people will find a way to get what they want. It's a little scarry but I guess there's not much to be done about it.

Our modern civilization is seriously over extended financially. It cannot mathematical pay for all it's on the hook for. So as time goes on more and more cuts will have to be made to public safety. First locally, then regionally and then even nationally. Some cities right now like Vallejo and Stockton CA had to cut it's police force down so much that there is a crime wave. If someone is breaking into your house and you call the police and they don't come what are you going to do?

I wonder too, if the police, the FBI and the Secret Service are going to turn their guns in for ones that only have 10 round clips?

IMO the original intent, back when travel was 20 miles a day, was that the states, counties and cities would run the day to day affairs and the federal govt (look up federal some time) would only provide for the common defense, and real money. Somewhere along the line we got fiat money, no gold standard and the feds telling teachers what they have to teach, along with a whole lot of other things that the feds were not supposed to be doing.

So the country is once again divided, those that think that the feds should control more and those that think control less. With extremists on both ends.

I project some civil unrest over various issues sparking up later this year into the fall of 2014. More importantly... I like pie. Does anyone else like pie?