• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Federal Gun Owner License

BobTheCoward said:
The problem with the too easily to get guns from a neighboring area into an area with gun laws is it has no inherit restrictions. It can always be an excuse as gun control proponents can likely always find a loophole. The hypothesis needs to be defined before we look at a situation like Chicago.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of having a national (or nationally standard) license actually helps with that issue. At least from a gun owner's point of view.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Fair cop.

I will restate...

"Unlike Australia, certain broad classes of firearms cannot be be rendered illegal to possess, nor subject to mandatory buyback and destruction, by edict."
Click to expand...
Yeah, that doesn't help. It was the "by edict" part of it that I had an objection to. You're misrepresenting the situation to make it sound like Howard merely spoke from on high and everyone jumped to fulfil his whim. Whereas in fact there was an extended period of fierce political debate and compromise, a one-off tax to pay for the buyback and at least one elected official losing his seat as a direct result.

It wasn't an "edict". It was a political process like any other.

WildCat said:
This looks "as bad as possible" to me:
Click to expand...
Obviously, we have quite different definitions of "bad". That image looks fantastic to me, and my heart swells with pride every time I see it. What would be much worse would be for all those guns to be in the hands of people who don't need them.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
You mean like defining "the people" as "troops under the command and control of the government"?

Because government have historically prevented their armies from being armed or something and so they decided it had to be included in the Bill of Rights? :boggled:

Yeah, there's a lot of creative definitions in this debate, but Scalia wasn't the one doing it.
Click to expand...


The real creative definitions are the ones you made up here. There was no army at the time that was written; but you know that.
 
Elind said:
Seriously, you spend your time parsing sentences between commas that you think are periods, do you?
Click to expand...
You look at "the people" and decide it means something other than "the people".
 
Elind said:
The real creative definitions are the ones you made up here. There was no army at the time that was written; but you know that.
Click to expand...
The "well-regulated militia" was under the command and control of the government. That the people also have the right to be armed was a check on the power of the troops under government control.

It's discussed in several Federalist Papers.
 
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

-George W. Bush

While this quote was almost certainly made up by a con or a loon, I agree with it.
 
WildCat said:
The "well-regulated militia" was under the command and control of the government. That the people also have the right to be armed was a check on the power of the troops under government control.

It's discussed in several Federalist Papers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, you want your gunz because you think you may need to use them against your fellow citizens that you disagree with.

My only question is, who's orders are you going to follow to start shooting, or will you just make up your own mind when to do so, like some already have?
 
It looks like we made it a good three pages before we got back to the old bickering ways. Many thanks to those who participated, but I doubt there is any hope left for this proposal or thread.
 
Dr. Keith said:
It looks like we made it a good three pages before we got back to the old bickering ways. Many thanks to those who participated, but I doubt there is any hope left for this proposal or thread.
Click to expand...

You could have just avoided making that post which contributes nothing to the thread, except that you disapprove of disagreement.
 
Elind said:
You could have just avoided making that post which contributes nothing to the thread, except that you disapprove of disagreement.
Click to expand...

I applaud disagreement. I disapprove of derailment.

We had a gun thread that stayed on topic for almost 3 pages. I'm calling it a win. So, I'm not going to report anything I'm just leaving it here as a reminder of how things fall apart quickly. And how much progress we can make when we acknowledge that we disagree on some issues that aren't directly pertinent.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I applaud disagreement. I disapprove of derailment.

We had a gun thread that stayed on topic for almost 3 pages. I'm calling it a win. So, I'm not going to report anything I'm just leaving it here as a reminder of how things fall apart quickly. And how much progress we can make when we acknowledge that we disagree on some issues that aren't directly pertinent.
Click to expand...

Again you say nothing relevant. I have a disagreement on interpretation of a sentence and syntax and commas and periods, not to mention context at the time.

In my book that is debate. You offer nothing.
 
Elind said:
Again you say nothing relevant. I have a disagreement on interpretation of a sentence and syntax and commas and periods, not to mention context at the time.

In my book that is debate. You offer nothing.
Click to expand...
A little while back you characterized disagreement on this as "obviously trivial" and implied that it puts one in bed with Scalia. Maybe the opportunity for true debate came and went.
 
bruto said:
A little while back you characterized disagreement on this as "obviously trivial" and implied that it puts one in bed with Scalia. Maybe the opportunity for true debate came and went.
Click to expand...

So you object to my characterization of your, apparently, opinion as trivial. But you don't engage in why and yet you say that there is no debate.

Very confusing, or something else.
 
Elind said:
So you object to my characterization of your, apparently, opinion as trivial. But you don't engage in why and yet you say that there is no debate.

Very confusing, or something else.
Click to expand...
I believe I did say why, but you simply did not like it.

You can't even respond here without a snarky adjective to characterize my "apparently, opinion."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom