Insane Gun Collectors

Other : Off Topic Previous Index Next Threaded
Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
Bob_Richter
12/04/02 01:54 AM
4.35.174.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>>at least you and bob both agree on something for once albiet a pathetic right.<<<

Yes, a pathetic right.

Like the right of free speech and assembly.

Or the freedom of the press (that's the right, incidentally, to print anything you feel like printing.)

Or the right to avoid illegal search and seizure?

It's the right not only to defend yourself, but have the means with which to do so.

If you consider that pathetic, well that's your own lookout.

But an ancestor of mine once said that they who abandon liberty for safety deserve neither.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Bloodrider
12/04/02 02:36 PM
64.12.96.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Amen. Btw, which ancestor do you refer to, if you don't mind my asking?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room..." -from Dr. Strangelove
Greyslayer
12/04/02 06:39 PM
216.14.192.226

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You've taken your own right too liberally. Defending yourself with arms does not mean 'the most devastating handgun known to man ' is not defnding yourself. Its more a statement of preparedness to attack rather than defend. Then there is the bit of having multiple weapons. Or effectively a company's worth of military hardware. How would you as an individual be able to say that it is your right to bear arms? Its insanity.

'Like the right of free speech and assembly.'

Its not the same. Not then nor now. The right to assembly can be tied into the 2nd ammendment but it isn't the SAME. There are laws, ammendments, acts, rights, decrees and what have you in EVERY constitution that people will probably not like. It just so happens people's interpretation of the right to bear arms is taken so far as to give them the right to take the rights of multiple 'others' away (such as a massacre). Also I did not pluralize the statement, this means I was targetting a singular right, attacking one is not attacking ALL. This smacks worse than a 'knee-jerk' reaction, this is sheer evangelistic patheticness to push the assumption that because I don't like the 2 ammendment right to bear arms then all rights are by proxy not allowed to be.

Get a grip,

Greyslayer
Spartan
12/04/02 08:13 PM
172.146.248.189

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Benjamin Franklin said that.
Spartan

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

(I refer you to what Nightward said)
Bob_Richter
12/04/02 09:05 PM
4.35.174.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>>Defending yourself with arms does not mean 'the most devastating handgun known to man ' is not defnding yourself. <<<

I'm missing where my right to defend myself does NOT extend to the most devastating handgun known to man.

Or the most devastating rifle or machine gun.

If I'm defending myself against an army (which is precisely what the Amendment supposes that I am doing,) these measures are quite reasonable.

>>>It just so happens people's interpretation of the right to bear arms is taken so far as to give them the right to take the rights of multiple 'others' away (such as a massacre).<<<

This is not correct.

Noone has the right to commit murder under the second ammendment. Not even ONE murder.

>>>this is sheer evangelistic patheticness to push the assumption that because I don't like the 2 ammendment right to bear arms then all rights are by proxy not allowed to be.<<<

I didn't.

>>>Get a grip,<<<

I *HAVE* a grip, as do you, we merely disagree.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Bob_Richter
12/04/02 09:06 PM
4.35.174.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Bloodrider
12/04/02 09:56 PM
152.163.189.136

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
n/t
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room..." -from Dr. Strangelove
MadWolf
12/04/02 10:16 PM
134.53.28.15

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Bob, I want to what your saying exactly, your saying that you own guns as to protect yourself from the U.S. right?

Grey, and you are saying that the right to bear arms is.... I don't know its kinda unclear....

It seems like you both are on the same page, just different paragraphs.....
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
Spartan
12/05/02 05:07 AM
172.132.222.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
"It just so happens people's interpretation of the right to bear arms is taken so far as to give them the right to take the rights of multiple 'others' away (such as a massacre)."

No, creating a massacre is strictly prohibited by the Constitution. To paraphrase: no one may have life, liberty or property taken away without due process of law. Those who use their second amendment right to bear arms to cause catastrophes such as Columbine High school are not only using their weapons for causes not outlined by the second amendment but violating the constitutional right of the victims to life, liberty and property. To draw an analogy, if I may, I have the right to swing my fist anywhere I want. No one may stop me. HOWEVER, my right to swing my fist ends where the other person's jaw begins.

"Its not the same."

The Constitution does not outline which rights take precedent over other rights. Hence, all rights *are* the same. Either the right exists or it does not. This right exists.
Spartan

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

(I refer you to what Nightward said)
Spartan
12/05/02 05:11 AM
172.132.222.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Greyslayer is of the mind that all automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be banned out right.

Bob and I are saying that the 2nd Amendment does not make restrictions and we therefore, under it, have the right to own those same weapons. Furthermore, we're saying that simply banning weapons outright will gaurantee that only the criminals (that is those who would use those weapons for unconstitutional means) will be able to obtain those same weapons. As they already do. Which is why I brought up the point of the MP5 I saw in high school in one of my earlier posts. A banned military grade weapon that turned up for sale to a high school student.
Spartan

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

(I refer you to what Nightward said)


Edited by Spartan (12/05/02 05:28 AM)
MadWolf
12/05/02 10:42 AM
134.53.28.70

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
i see where there at now
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
Bob_Richter
12/05/02 10:54 AM
4.35.174.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>>Bob, I want to what your saying exactly, your saying that you own guns as to protect yourself from the U.S. right?<<<

I say that, to protect my freedom, I must have the right to.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't own any weapon more advanced than a sword, but I firmly believe in my RIGHT (and everyone else's, for that matter) to.

>>>It seems like you both are on the same page, just different paragraphs..... <<<

Our assumptions differ, rendering logical argument pointless.

I was trying to point THAT out, too.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Nightmare
12/05/02 01:10 PM
80.222.92.246

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes, people will happily try (and succeed in) getting illegal weapons, like that MP5. It was still stolen somwhere. Presumably from some place where it was legal for it to lay about, such as a police armory. I`d think stealing from a gun nut is a bit easier, so why not make it illegal for civilians to collect large stockpiles of guns?
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
Greyslayer
12/05/02 01:17 PM
216.14.192.226

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A person would find greater difficulty in defining a difference from a banned automatic weapon and a legal automatic weapon which is where your system DOES fail. A weapon by category than purely by make would be easier to control. If people under the current conditions sees a automatic weapon in someone's house the assumption would be that it is legal because most automatic weapons are, how is the ordinary joe able to tell the difference without the exact list of banned equipment?

Oh btw I wasn't banning ALL semi-automatic rifles. Those used by shooting clubs are quite often semi-autos. They though are specifically designed for a task and can be stored at the shooting club in a suitably secure gun-safe or magazine, it could be illegal to store them in say your house.

Greyslayer
Greyslayer
12/05/02 01:25 PM
216.14.192.226

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The I'm just holding it for a buddy, or its my 5-year old son's gun and so on would occur in that situation.

Now here is a question, do people collect guns for their:

a) Looks
b) History
c) Firepower
d) Because Barbie dolls were sold out.
e) Because 3 of the other 12 voices in your head tell you so
f) Resale Value to other collectors
g) Combination of a) & b)
h) Combination of b) & c)
i) Combination of a), b) & c)

Just curious

Greyslayer
Bloodrider
12/05/02 03:07 PM
64.12.96.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In my case, it would be i) combination of a), b), and c). However, I don't own any autos at all, I can protect myself with my hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers if I need to
I don't have any real need for assault rifles except for the possible "cool" factor, so I don't own any. Still, I agree with Bob on this issue, for exactly the same reasons.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room..." -from Dr. Strangelove
Bob_Richter
12/09/02 03:48 AM
4.35.174.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>>so why not make it illegal for civilians to collect large stockpiles of guns? <<<

Because, in America, we consider that a violation of their Basic Human Rights.

Any Right given to the people has the potential to cause trouble. Weapon ownership no more or less so than the others.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Nightmare
12/09/02 09:38 PM
80.222.92.246

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Reasonable self-defence weapons are quite OK, it`s the pile of military grade hardware I`m worried about. What`s the collector going to do with machine guns, bombs, bazookas and missiles?

One of the funniest statements I`ve heard was made by some people demonstrating against a voluntary reserve training weekend in the town where I live. Some sort of small communist group, full of people who`ve refused to serve in the military (mandatory for males). They actually said "the government is arming troops to fight the working class"! Just who do they think shows up at a voluntary refresher course anyway? University teachers? Big businessmen? Or perhaps ordinary working class men?
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
Bloodrider
12/10/02 11:12 AM
152.163.189.136

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is funny. But not too surprising, though.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room..." -from Dr. Strangelove
Toastrider
12/11/02 08:51 AM
172.169.133.57

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Just out of curiousity, Greyslayer, would you care to comment on the problems in England?

See, they've banned practically all firearms there from the common populace, and are now experiencing a massive boom in armed crime. Because, obviously, the criminals aren't going to obey the law; that's why they're criminals.

I don't think John Q. Public needs a cannon, but at the same time, don't tread on my right to shoot my Mossberg shotgun at doves during dove season, kthx?

--Toasty
"The survivors, not the victors, write the history books."
Bob_Richter
12/11/02 04:06 PM
4.35.174.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>>Reasonable self-defence weapons are quite OK, it`s the pile of military grade hardware I`m worried about. What`s the collector going to do with machine guns, bombs, bazookas and missiles?<<<

Attempt to fight off an army.

If that's what you're defending yourself against, it certainly constitutes a reasonable defense.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Greyslayer
12/12/02 04:37 AM
216.14.192.226

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting enough their police aren't usually armed with firearms either and strangely their armed robbery levels are WAYYYYYY lower than countries with guns. The recent problems could be more caused by the ethnic clashes recently and that it is pretty easy to smuggle stuff to england through france and so on.

England as such has had a heap of 'race riots' in the past few years with crime surges related to these recent occurances. Now even in countries such as Australia racial gangs are a centerpoint of crime within certain districts and this could be more the point of gun usage increase in crimes in England, they didn't have those problems several years ago before serious racial tension flared up.
Rotwang
01/30/03 02:51 PM
213.224.83.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I believe that gun control should mean that guns are being kept out of the hands of stupid idiots who think that by holding a gun they have become Rambo, the Terminator or The Avenging Angel of Death.

The real problem is that people in the US are for some reason or another very trigger happy. The cause is open for debate, but the fact is that there are a lot of people out there who now think a gun is the solution to their problems. Gun control may help a little bit and save a few lives, but the problem of violence should be tackled and not some populist "just ban it" attitude.
MadWolf
01/31/03 07:12 PM
134.53.28.108

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Banning it does nothing, like banning alcohol in the 1920-30's. Education is the only answer, and i think anyone can own a AK-47 if they are Educated properly and respect the gun......................its just achieveing that respect is the problem.....
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
Greyslayer
02/02/03 06:28 PM
216.14.192.226

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/59B7726E1FB2F77FCA256C6800078CD9

This article does touch on gun crime and the percentages involved with certain countries. It also has interesting stats on other things (like in Australia your house will be broken into but very few murders where as in the states more murders and less breaking in).

It does touch on the theories involved in completing their senior high school education. I do feel though that they 'tip-toed' around the issue of multi-culturalism. This could in fact attribute to the increase in crime in those countries witnessing a surge in crime rates. Of course anyone saying that will be called a racist ...... oh well.

Greyslayer
Diablo
02/06/03 04:40 PM
66.203.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think they should just make a bullet cost about $500 a peice. this way people can have guns to look pretty. but if your going to go kill someone, your going to have to have the money. but then u have the people who'll just make their own ammo ect. but it's a good idea none the less.
"whats that bluish fuzzy thing on your head?"
-Luciphear to Talis, just before he exploded.

www.geocitis.com/luciph34r
Gangrene
02/24/03 11:27 PM
68.113.44.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't think gun collectors are insane, being as I am sort of one myself. But missiles and machine guns are WAY over the line. Most of the people I know who collect and shoot guns are responsible owners who believe heavily in the western notion of civic defense. There is, however, the occasional weird person out there. The weirdest gun collector I know is someone who was so convinced that Y2K would lead to a disaster that he went and camped out at his church (my former church) with his family, guns, and provisions. Incidentally, this is someone I occasionally play Btech with.
Gangrene
Gangrene
02/24/03 11:41 PM
68.113.44.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wow, I actually agree with Bob.

The idea of owning weapons is not about killing people, its about being an equal partner in a democratic society. Civic militarism, as it is called, has been around since the greeks as is a hallmark of western societies. Only people who fear their fellow citizens would deny them the right to protect themselves and their property through the use of force.
Gangrene
Gangrene
02/24/03 11:45 PM
68.113.44.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You have a BAR! That's cool.
Gangrene
Gangrene
02/24/03 11:48 PM
68.113.44.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I collect knives, too. My collection would be better if I wasn't so "financially challenged." So far I have only managed to get one Gil Hibben knife.
Gangrene
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)

Extra information
0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, mattbuck, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 7575


Contact Admins Sarna.net