thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,551
CFLarsen said:
It's a different type of tool.
It's a different type of tool.
merphie said:
Huh?? OK, how do I get a license for a bomb for personal protection??
merphie said:
Then show the references.
merphie said:
Prove it. E.g., by keeping the gun at the shooting range, not at your house. Will you do it?
merphie said:
No, I am suggesting exactly the same "precautions" that gun proponents point to, when they argue that they should be allowed to have guns: Personal protection.
merphie said:
Show me the law.
Why not bombs? (Oh, sorry - I am waiting for you to tell me where I get a permission to carry a bomb)
merphie said:
It doesn't matter if it is "right" or not! You pointed to lawsuits, and I showed you wrong, by your own examples.
merphie said:
It doesn't matter if it is "justified". Will they win in court?
And..you forgot this one: I can't see the difference. Still care to try?
CFLarsen said:
Because in the states we try to avoid all encompassing laws. We don't have a "Potentially dangerous item" law.
We have laws pertaining to full auto weapons which ban the sale, possession and use of them without a special license.
We have similar laws pertaining to explosive devices. You can legally buy explosive devices but there are laws and paperwork involved. Why can we buy such things? Removing large rocks and stumps on personal property is an example.
Within each law I beleive is a clause stating something about it not being legal to bypass the law. Meaning that making a huge bomb is illegal, making a gun fully auto, unless properly licensed and authorized, is illegal. In short, it is illegal to break the law.
So to be perfectly honest, you can have a bomb, but only one of a particular nature, designed and intended for a particular use and only after abiding by all laws and procedures of procuring one.
Does this sort of law stop people from making illegal versions of things? No. No law stops a crime from being committed. Laws are just guidelines for the law abiding and reasons to punish law breakers. That is how laws work in all countries.
A car and a horse can be used for transportation. There are laws that are similar for each pertaining to transportaion and laws that are exclusive for each as well. So that argument of things being used for the same reason is no good. In my state, Pennsylvania, they just recently decided that DUI laws do not apply to horses.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/horse.drunkenness.ap/
So even though use is the same, different laws are made for different object with the capacity for the same use. This way we avoid conflict and confusion when people like you ask why. haha
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Tmy said:
Collateral damage is inevitable, but worth it in order to make your point.
Troll said:
Eh....yes, you do. That's why you have laws pertaining to gun sales.
Troll said:
But the same goes for guns, right?
Troll said:
I am not talking about illegal versions.
Troll said:So even though use is the same, different laws are made for different object with the capacity for the same use. This way we avoid conflict and confusion when people like you ask why. haha
Sorry, but a gun can be used for both good and bad uses. So can bombs. So, why can't I carry a bomb around for self-defense, the way I can with a gun?
CFLarsen said:
No we don't. Try reading and not cherry picking. I said we do not have all encompassing laws. We do not have a specific law covering all potentially dangerous weapons. We have laws pertaining to each thing seperately.
Yes we have laws pertaining to legal guns. We have laws pertaining to guns that are legal with a special license, and we have laws pertaining to legal explosives and laws pertaining to illegal explosives and laws pertaining to the illegal use of legal items.
You cannot carry a bomb around with you as self-defense because the law feels that the amount of damage caused would be excessive in the force needed to defend yourself. The man attacking you may be your target, but the bomb will more than likely take out far more than the intended target where as a gun that is legal for self-defense is only going to send out one bullet at a time per pull of the trigger, as such severely limiting the potential damage or harm to others and property. We like to view it as trying to stick in a little common sense into the laws. Why? Because some people would wonder why they can't just use a bomb for self-defense which shows a lack of thinking on their part. As a result we often find we have to do some of the thinking for them.
And i already covered the similiar use thing. Try cherry picking that out of the post next time.
Troll said:You cannot carry a bomb around with you as self-defense because the law feels that the amount of damage caused would be excessive in the force needed to defend yourself. The man attacking you may be your target, but the bomb will more than likely take out far more than the intended target where as a gun that is legal for self-defense is only going to send out one bullet at a time per pull of the trigger, as such severely limiting the potential damage or harm to others and property. We like to view it as trying to stick in a little common sense into the laws. Why? Because some people would wonder why they can't just use a bomb for self-defense which shows a lack of thinking on their part. As a result we often find we have to do some of the thinking for them.
Please show me the laws where the amount of damage done by (small) bombs are considered larger than what can be done with a gun.
I am talking specifics.
CFLarsen said:
CFLarson,
I guess I can say your apparent rudeness is due to ignorance and not living in the USA, but you can try to be more polite.
You want merphie to post a link for getting a permit for owning a bomb for self-defense. It is easy (if living in the US), just go to http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/foia.htm and download the applicable forms to get the license. When I became a dealer in firearms back in 1990, it was just a matter of checking the box on the form and sending in the extra $1000.00 to get a bomb making/importing license. I went with the $90.00 FFL because I had no interest in bombs. Owning a bomb for self defense sounds dumb, but there is no law agaisnt it here if you have the right permits.
You also want merphie to prove he is a target shooter and not a killer by keeping his guns at the range. This is downright rude. Here in America, self-respecting gun owners do not try to give away the responsibility for their firearms to others. They take on the burden themselves.
Ranb
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Tmy said:
Excessive force? Unless you're a cop, the only worry you'd need on that count is whether the jury agrees with your action.
I suggest littering the floor of your home with caltrops every evening. If the burglars complain, you are left with the cutting question "If you didn't want three inches of barbed steel through your feet, why were you wandering around inside my house uninvited at three in the morning?"
Of course, if you have a tendency to sleepwalk you might not wish to do this.
CFLarsen said:
I didn't say for personal protection but you can have bomb. Check out BATF.gov.
I do keep guns for protection. I even carry a concealed weapon. I never said I didn't. I said I don't practice killing people when I go to the range.
That's not the only argument from pro-gun. It is one of them. The police are not required to protect you. Prove a bomb can be used in a defensive manner in a city. You have to try and prevent accidental killing of innocence.
I can speak better about the Laws of Oklahoma because I am more familar with Oklahoma Laws. Look up "Oklahoma Self defense Act" It talks specifically what you can and can not do. You will need to consult the BATF.gov if you are looking for the regulation of the gun industry.
You can also look up
-"The National Firearms Act of 1934"
-"The Federal Firearms act of 1938"
-"The Gun control act of 1968"
-"The Firearms Owners' protection Act of 1986"
-"The Undetectible Handgun Law of 1988"
-"The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993"
If you don't know why then how can I tell you? You are sticking to this obsurd notion about bombs for self defense. I never said you could carry a bomb around for self defense. Then you would be a terrorist. Look up the laws at the BATF governing explosives.
No, My argument is that the lawsuits are wrong. I know they have happened and that's why I mentioned them. My point is exactly if they are right or wrong.
Most of them don't from what I have read. The defense still gets legal fees which hurt the industry.
You obivously don't understand. Would it be OK for me to sue you for Libel? I probably wouldn't win in court, but I could continuously bring them up and you will still have to pay a lawyer to defend yourself. The question would not be who is right. The question would be who has more money. That's like Gellar suing everyone for little things. Do you think he is right?
CFLarsen said:
No can do. I was stating the reasoning behind the laws, not specifics in the laws themselves. Specifics in the laws offer no reasons just the law as the reasoning behind it created it.
If you would like i could link you to some specific federal and state laws as pertains to explosives.
merphie said:
I asked for a bomb for my personal protection. Can I have one, yes or no?
Don't tell me to go to a website. Show me specifics.
merphie said:
So, you will not keep the gun at the range. How can I trust you not to use the gun irresponsibly, the same way you don't trust me to use my bomb irresponsibly?
merphie said:
It may not be the only argument, but it is the argument we are discussing. Please address my point, and refrain from making more irrelevant points.
merphie said:
No, don't tell me to go look for your evidence. You show it.
merphie said:
Why do you get to determine what I can use for self-defense? You are now doing what the gun-banners are doing!! Don't tell me what I can do with my bomb!!
merphie said:
It doesn't matter what you think of the lawsuits. You pointed to law. These companies were shown wrong by the courts. Now, what are you going to do?
merphie said:
Your own examples proved that they did. Now, what?
merphie said:
OK, listen up: If you don't think that law can determine this, then don't bring it up!
CFLarsen said:
I will not cater to your laziness. You want to know. You read it. I gave you the link where to find the information you seek. I seriously doubt they will allow a bomb for "Self Defense" They can not be used in that manner the same way a gun can be.
Ranb did give you a link. I suggest you apply for a license for your purpose. If they reject you then you can write congress. Since you apparently are not a US citizen our laws do not apply to you.
The state thinks I am responsible. If I break the law I go to jail. I am very responsible for my weapons. I train my kids on gun safety and keep most of the guns in a Safe. I have paid for my wife and I to attend classes on proper gun safety. You do not know me and your assumptions are rude and nothing more than a personal attack.
I made no suggestion you could use a bomb for self defense. That is your strawman.
I am not trying to get you to look for evidence. I gave you the specific name of the law. I can not help if you are unwilling to examine the evidence given.
I don't determine it. The Law does.
The guy claiming fast food companies made him fat didn't win. Most of the lawsuits against the manufacturer were dismissed. I will use my freedom of speech and my government to better our society. I will start by writing my representatives. I will treat them with respect and refrain from personal attack no matter what their opinion is.
It matters what i think. We live in a democracy.
The people who did it were wrong and abusing the system.
They law can't determine what? The fact I could bring repeated lawsuits against you for no other reason to bankrupt you?