07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 140141142143144 ...
tools
  1. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    While this is related to the Syria thread it is also a separate issue in regards to the federal laws that are being circumvented to allow this to happen.


    UPDATED: Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition | Mobile Washington Examiner

    Related article:
    Glenn Beck Calls For Obama to Be Impeached Over Waiving Ban on Arming Terrorists - ALIPAC
    Obama, Reid, Boehner and the likes should all be removed from office and serve jail time. Why is it illegal for Snowden, but not for them?
    10-12-2013 12:01 AM
  2. Scott7217's Avatar
    Perhaps I can do some sort of remote control system, like James Bond!
    I have seen remote controlled machine guns mounted on SUVs. The cool thing is that you could have them hidden when they're not in use. If you're suddenly in danger, you can pop out a turret from the roof of your vehicle and aim the machine guns from your dashboard. I assume that there is a camera that provides a method to target your adversaries.
    10-12-2013 08:52 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    Obama, Reid, Boehner and the likes should all be removed from office and serve jail time. Why is it illegal for Snowden, but not for them?
    That is a good question. How hard would it be to remove anyone from office? Once you've done that, how hard would it be to charge and convict someone of a crime? I don't know the answers to those questions. Perhaps we just assume that the current system of checks and balances prevents the top leaders from committing any criminal offenses.
    10-12-2013 09:14 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    The article seems to indicate that the US would provide defensive materials and training to protect civilians from chemical weapons, a course of action that has wide bipartisan support. There's no indication of giving weapons to anyone, let alone terrorists.
    Johnly likes this.
    10-13-2013 12:31 AM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    I have seen remote controlled machine guns mounted on SUVs. The cool thing is that you could have them hidden when they're not in use. If you're suddenly in danger, you can pop out a turret from the roof of your vehicle and aim the machine guns from your dashboard. I assume that there is a camera that provides a method to target your adversaries.
    And the suggestion is that we want Joe Schmoe, Drunk Driver Dave and Road Rage Rick to have these capabilities on any or every civilian vehicle?
    10-13-2013 12:36 AM
  6. plumbrich's Avatar
    As far as the original question I think the section on the 1986 gun law making it illegal to produce new fully automatic weapons after 1986 except to law enforcement only should be over turned. There were 175,000 full auto guns made legal to U.S. citizens/civilians and made before the 1986 full auto ban on sales to citizens on full auto manufactured after 1986.

    Allot of people don't realize it is legal to own a full auto firearm in the U.S. by filling out the paper work and paying the $200.00 dollar tax. Having only 175,00 guns legal to civilians in this category makes purchasing one an expensive endeavor. Now with 175,00 full auto weapons out there in civilian hands how many have been used in a crime? ZERO!!!!!!!

    The two largest mass murders in U.S. history were committed with box cutters and fertilizer. We have not banned box cutters and fertilizer and should not.

    With roughly 320 million people in the U.S. we shouldn't ban things for what .000000001% of the population MIGHT do..
    bigdaddytee likes this.
    10-13-2013 06:35 AM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    As far as the original question I think the section on the 1986 gun law making it illegal to produce new fully automatic weapons after 1986 except to law enforcement only should be over turned. There were 175,000 full auto guns made legal to U.S. citizens/civilians and made before the 1986 full auto ban on sales to citizens on full auto manufactured after 1986.

    Allot of people don't realize it is legal to own a full auto firearm in the U.S. by filling out the paper work and paying the $200.00 dollar tax. Having only 175,00 guns legal to civilians in this category makes purchasing one an expensive endeavor. Now with 175,00 full auto weapons out there in civilian hands how many have been used in a crime? ZERO!!!!!!!

    The two largest mass murders in U.S. history were committed with box cutters and fertilizer. We have not banned box cutters and fertilizer and should not.

    With roughly 320 million people in the U.S. we shouldn't ban things for what .000000001% of the population MIGHT do..
    I agree to an extent, but 175k weapons is basically 1 in 2000 people. If that increased to 1 in 20 people I have a hard time believing we wouldn't see homicide and accidents skyrocket. One positive effect of the ban is that's it's very difficult for criminals to get them due to scarcity. That being said, I'd rather fix whatever is broken in the culture that makes people glorify the criminal lifestyle... Then bans are unnecessary.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-13-2013 07:04 AM
  8. STARGATE's Avatar
    Any individual side arm or shoulder arm, including select fire weapons.

    My reasoning is that a) the citizens at the time of the Constitution's ratification had access to weapons that used equal or better technology than those issued to government forces, and b) the Constitution, once ratified, affirms this right, and expressly prohibits the governments infringement of this inherent right, thus rendering any subsequent laws which would "allow" or "disallow" any type of weapon, as unconstitutional and a violation of citizens rights.

    Simply put, the government, whose authority does not exceed citizen's civil and inherent rights,does not have the constitutional authority to disallow any weapons, thus rendering all such laws which are currently made and enforced unconstitutional, null and void.

    Sent from the (4.2 updated) redheaded stepchild of the Nexii
    This ^^^
    :thumbup::beer::beer:

    Sent From a Galaxy S4 Away!
    10-13-2013 07:43 AM
  9. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I have seen remote controlled machine guns mounted on SUVs. The cool thing is that you could have them hidden when they're not in use. If you're suddenly in danger, you can pop out a turret from the roof of your vehicle and aim the machine guns from your dashboard. I assume that there is a camera that provides a method to target your adversaries.
    Seriously? What kind of vehicles? I mean law enforcement or what.
    10-13-2013 02:13 PM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    And the suggestion is that we want Joe Schmoe, Drunk Driver Dave and Road Rage Rick to have these capabilities on any or every civilian vehicle?
    I'm not sure these individuals would pass a background check for a firearms license. If they can't get a license, they wouldn't be able to legally get a weapon to mount on their vehicle in the first place.
    10-14-2013 01:40 AM
  11. Scott7217's Avatar
    Having only 175,00 guns legal to civilians in this category makes purchasing one an expensive endeavor.
    Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to affordable firearms?
    10-14-2013 01:42 AM
  12. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to affordable firearms?
    It does not, nor does it require background checks. I wonder what it was like in the old days where practically everyone had a gun.
    10-15-2013 04:36 PM
  13. plumbrich's Avatar
    "Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to affordable firearms?"

    Not that I am aware of and didn't mean for my post to sound they way.

    The price increase is dictated by the supply and demand of such weapons. I obtained my full auto weapons in the late 80's and seen them steadily increase with a few drops in-between. They have dropped somewhat in today's economy but seen what was coming and sold them in 2006. Price of ammo and its scarcity has affected the amount of time people spend shooting them. However allot of guys offset some of those cost by going to a few machine gun shoots and letting others get the opportunity to shoot them for a fee.

    The finger printing, 2 forms of picture I.D., FBI back ground checks, permission from local law enforcement and cost of ammo is the deal breaker for most not the initial cost of the firearm. If someone can afford to own a jet ski and a four wheeler they more than likely can afford a full auto weapon. With all that documentation comes allot of responsibility. You also quickly realize if anyone does a bad thing with a full auto you will be visited. If there is a Government collapse of some kind or any kind of gun confiscation you will be the first on the list to visit. In other words if you have a criminal mind or don't want the Government to know you have guns and want to be under the radar a legal full auto gun is the last thing you would want even if they were free.

    I think most people think of full auto guns as in the movies mowing people down and killing everyone in its path. The bank robbers in North Hollywood with their ILLEGAL made full auto guns found out the hard way it is not the weapon you want for offense in that situation. They expended many full auto rounds and killed no one in the end but themselves.
    Full auto weapons used for taking lives are more logical in a military role where only a few have full auto for suppressing fire so the infantry can move forward.

    If you would like one for an investment or because you love shooting and don't mind going through the legal means then get one and enjoy. If you are a criminal or have a criminal agenda then you more than likely won't get one legally anyway.
    Allot of us have owned things that were not real practical or used in our daily lives but gave us much joy to play with even though others may have looked at you like you were a little cooky.
    bigdaddytee likes this.
    10-15-2013 05:07 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    It does not, nor does it require background checks. I wonder what it was like in the old days where practically everyone had a gun.
    So, let me propose a hypothetical scenario for you where there are no background checks at all. Could the government use financial incentives to discourage firearms companies from selling to civilians? For example, the government pitches a multi-million dollar contract to all the firearms companies to buy weapons for the military and police. However, to be eligible to get the contract, the companies must never sell firearms to civilians. Since the companies want to make a lot of money, they voluntarily restrict their sales to military and police only, no exceptions.

    As a civilian, the problem you face is that no one is willing to sell a firearm to you. Of course, there may be ways around this. For example, you can always make your own firearms if you are skilled in working with metals. That's probably what they did in the old days.
    10-15-2013 05:39 PM
  15. Fairclough's Avatar
    Our government just bought the majority of them back with the exception of cattle farmers theirs were modified to hold a limited amount of rounds.

    The price they paid was above market price. For all the guns on average they paid $720 each in the 90s for everything which included hand guns.

    So there was a financial incentive for people to hand in their arms.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    10-15-2013 07:52 PM
  16. JW4VZW's Avatar
    So, let me propose a hypothetical scenario for you where there are no background checks at all. Could the government use financial incentives to discourage firearms companies from selling to civilians? For example, the government pitches a multi-million dollar contract to all the firearms companies to buy weapons for the military and police. However, to be eligible to get the contract, the companies must never sell firearms to civilians. Since the companies want to make a lot of money, they voluntarily restrict their sales to military and police only, no exceptions.

    As a civilian, the problem you face is that no one is willing to sell a firearm to you. Of course, there may be ways around this. For example, you can always make your own firearms if you are skilled in working with metals. That's probably what they did in the old days.
    As a citizen, I would find such a contract to infringe on my Second Amendment Rights.
    10-19-2013 03:52 PM
  17. Scott7217's Avatar
    As a citizen, I would find such a contract to infringe on my Second Amendment Rights.
    Presumably, each company would do a financial analysis on the contract in this hypothetical scenario. If they can make more money selling to the government, they will accept the contract. If not, they will sell to the public. The situation begs the question: While you may have a right to bear arms, are you entitled to have a company sell them to you?
    10-22-2013 06:49 PM
  18. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Presumably, each company would do a financial analysis on the contract in this hypothetical scenario. If they can make more money selling to the government, they will accept the contract. If not, they will sell to the public. The situation begs the question: While you may have a right to bear arms, are you entitled to have a company sell them to you?
    That's a great point actually. To be honest, I do not have a reply to that as I still have not thought it through. It is sort of a catch 22.
    10-22-2013 08:41 PM
  19. bigdaddytee's Avatar
    So simple. No corporation is prohibited from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

    The government is.

    It is absolutely prohibited from making such a contract.

    Sent from the (4.2 updated) redheaded stepchild of the Nexii
    10-22-2013 08:54 PM
  20. bigdaddytee's Avatar
    Hypotheticals are fun. Reality is a *****.

    Sent from the (4.2 updated) redheaded stepchild of the Nexii
    10-22-2013 08:55 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    So simple. No corporation is prohibited from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

    The government is.

    It is absolutely prohibited from making such a contract.
    So, if I understand you correctly, the contract would be invalid because the Second Amendment implies that a private company must be available to sell weapons to civilians. If there are no companies that can sell to civilians, there would be a violation of the Second Amendment. This is despite the fact that I mentioned civilians were permitted to make their own weapons with no adverse legal consequences.

    Could the government modify the contract to state that civilian sales are allowed, but the minimum price for an individual weapon (e.g. a single rifle) must be one million dollars ($1,000,000)? In this case, civilian sales are not prohibited. You can buy a rifle if you have the money. If you can't pay the entire bill up front, you could get a loan. So there is no outright ban, but purchasing a weapon would be expensive for most people.
    10-22-2013 09:53 PM
  22. JW4VZW's Avatar
    So simple. No corporation is prohibited from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

    The government is.

    It is absolutely prohibited from making such a contract.

    Sent from the (4.2 updated) redheaded stepchild of the Nexii
    Great answer!
    10-23-2013 11:28 AM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    Hypotheticals are fun. Reality is a *****.
    Realistically speaking, what is the deadliest civilian weapon you can think of? We have a lot of votes for cotton swabs.
    10-23-2013 04:08 PM
  24. stalemate1's Avatar
    I guess many people fear America going back to its wild west days...drunk people + guns = not a good idea (and dont tell me all Americans are sober all the time)

    I mean a guy with a gun and a short temper is a recipe for destruction.
    10-24-2013 02:26 AM
  25. llamabreath's Avatar
    I guess many people fear America going back to its wild west days...drunk people + guns = not a good idea (and dont tell me all Americans are sober all the time)

    I mean a guy with a gun and a short temper is a recipe for destruction.
    So is a guy (or woman) with a car and a short temper.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    Scott7217 likes this.
    10-24-2013 11:53 AM
4,617 ... 140141142143144 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD