Gotta love the left media....

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Sigh...I really don't have an issue with people buying what they want or defending your right to own a firearm but seriously...you two take this way too far. You are obsessive and I question whether or not it is healthy.

I see, and if I showed you solid historic evidence that you could quadruple some other investment in 4 years, you wouldn't be the least interested? There's nothing wrong with making a little profit while being right.

2nd mortgage for guns is a retarded decision. I don't care how you slice it. Spending other money that has nothing to do with the roof over your head is different.

Even if you are against guns, there is plenty of money to be made right now. I buy USGI magazines for $11 a piece in lots of 25. Easily flipped for $14-$15. 27% markup for doing nothing? Oh yah. Just wish the distributor would drop-ship.

You've got to pay to play. Money doesn't make itself. I maxed out credit cards as I rent right now.

First, I am not against guns. Second, I know you have to spend money to make money. I just think that it is dumb to put things like your home at risk when doing so considering there are many better options out there. Hasn't our recent economic crisis taught us anything about our homes and why we shouldn't put them at risk?

Yeah didn't mean to imply you were, just meant that even those who abhor them should at least see where there is money to be made.

And yeah the housing market is in the shitter, but there are still deals to be made. My dad is still buying and flipping. And with a stable job (I think POW works for a university no?) taking out a HELOC may not be a bad idea. The stuff I'm doing is short term anyway. Taking out a HELOC and just buying...I'd have to think on.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Xavier434
First, I am not against guns. Second, I know you have to spend money to make money. I just think that it is dumb to put things like your home at risk when doing so considering there are many better options out there. Hasn't our recent economic crisis taught us anything about our homes and why we shouldn't put them at risk?

Yeah didn't mean to imply you were, just meant that even those who abhor them should at least see where there is money to be made.

And yeah the housing market is in the shitter, but there are still deals to be made. My dad is still buying and flipping. And with a stable job (I think POW works for a university no?) taking out a HELOC may not be a bad idea. The stuff I'm doing is short term anyway. Taking out a HELOC and just buying...I'd have to think on.

Buying and flipping investment homes is different than putting the roof over your head at any kind of risk for investment. You need that roof. The rest is just wealth.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Noted. Still doesn't change my position though.

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the distinction.

It's amazing how many people believe that without the AWB people can just walk into stores and buy full-auto firearms and that simply isn't true (heck, it hasn't been true since 1936 when full-auto firearms became regulated and required a lengthy permit process, registration, and expensive tax payment). Some people see an AR-15 and assume, just because it looks similar to a military M16, it must operate the same way.

ZV

I would like people to understand that there is a distinction between what Obama wants and those who want to ban the vast majority of fire arms. Right now, there is very little information and what we do have is vague across many issues. Those who do not support Obama are trying desperately to fill the gaps in the puzzle with speculation and it is causing a lot of people to get scared which I think is both unhealthy and unnecessary for the country at this point. They really just need to sit back and be much more patient instead of allowing their panties to get all tied up in a knot.

Personally, I think that the biggest thing that Obama wants to do is just try and close loopholes that allow criminals to obtain these weapons illegally. I would rather see more focus on that then anything else and I really believe that is where the focus will be.

I have no problem with Obama. I would have voted for him my only option had been the two main parties. I also have all the facts about his voting record and statements, and know which way his flag blows on this particular issue; unless he's truly changed his beliefs recently, which I suppose is possible. Still, doesn't hurt to be prepared.

There is no loophole. Criminals obtain weapons either because they weren't criminals when they obtained them, or they're obtaining them in a criminal manner. Either way, there's nothing to close.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I agree Slow - my mistake - I'm more concerned with higher-caliber weapons, like .50 caliber rifles...though to be honest I'm not sure why people need AR-15's and the like, I'm not at all calling for a ban on them

Would you please show the last time a .50 was used in a crime? Criminals are too poor to afford the ammunition for a .50 anyway.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Noted. Still doesn't change my position though.

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the distinction.

It's amazing how many people believe that without the AWB people can just walk into stores and buy full-auto firearms and that simply isn't true (heck, it hasn't been true since 1936 when full-auto firearms became regulated and required a lengthy permit process, registration, and expensive tax payment). Some people see an AR-15 and assume, just because it looks similar to a military M16, it must operate the same way.

ZV

I would like people to understand that there is a distinction between what Obama wants and those who want to ban the vast majority of fire arms. Right now, there is very little information and what we do have is vague across many issues. Those who do not support Obama are trying desperately to fill the gaps in the puzzle with speculation and it is causing a lot of people to get scared which I think is both unhealthy and unnecessary for the country at this point. They really just need to sit back and be much more patient instead of allowing their panties to get all tied up in a knot.

Personally, I think that the biggest thing that Obama wants to do is just try and close loopholes that allow criminals to obtain these weapons illegally. I would rather see more focus on that then anything else and I really believe that is where the focus will be.

I tend to agree with you. I think there is a lot of mis-information about what Obama wants.

However, I also think that any Democrat majority in both houses combined with a Democrat in the White House tends to increase the chances of some form of AWB returning. It's not so much "Obama wants to take my guns" as it is, "Hmmm, the chances are higher than they used to be". You're absolutely right that people are overstating (severely so) Obama's likeliness as an impetus for it though.

ZV

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Well, most weapons are bought by criminals. Thieves, murderers, rapists, Republicans, terrorists, etc.

So what you're saying is that thieves, murderers, rapists and terrorists are Democrats?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Noted. Still doesn't change my position though.

what's your justification?

under Supreme Court precedent, a law has to bear a rational basis to its goal. if the goal is to prevent crime, what is the rational basis in banning guns that simply aren't used in crime?

 

[TravisT]

After Obama gets out of office it will be a crime to buy guns. So I'm not shocked that CNN would go ahead and put this topic under crime. Everyone knows what's coming.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: NeoV
yah, cause so many of you need to have an AR-15, even though about .05% of you would have any idea of what to even do with one

you gun freaks never cease to amaze me with your one-sided view of this issue

while I completely agree that the previous assault-weapon ban was not nearly as well defined as it should have been, can you seriously tell me why people need to be able to buy weapons such as an AR-15?

It's funny to see a gun grabber call gun owners one sided. Gun owners aren't forcing anybody to own guns, they just choose to do so themselves. They're open minded compared to gun grabbers, who say nobody can own one.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I agree Slow - my mistake - I'm more concerned with higher-caliber weapons, like .50 caliber rifles...though to be honest I'm not sure why people need AR-15's and the like, I'm not at all calling for a ban on them

Again, I think you are lacking a bit of knowledge. A .50 caliber rifle is huge and heavy. Not to mention ammo for those cost quite a bit. No one would try and rob a bank carrying around a gun that uses .50 BMG ammo. I'd be willing to bet next to no crimes are commited using a Smith & Wesson Model 500 (.50 cal handgun) as it's large, bulky, and expensive as well.

The fact is that many people are brainwashed by the media to fear 'assault' weapons, but they don't even know what it means. A 50 cal or AR-15, AK-47, etc. may look menacing, but are no any more deadly then most weapons that would not be banned in the prior assault weapons ban. That's what's so frustratingly stupid about it. They chose to ban weapons based on their looks more or less.

Obama's history is very anti-gun. I still don't see why people think it's stupid to buy things now that have a very good chance of not being available for sale in the near future.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Noted. Still doesn't change my position though.

what's your justification?

under Supreme Court precedent, a law has to bear a rational basis to its goal. if the goal is to prevent crime, what is the rational basis in banning guns that simply aren't used in crime?

Rocket Launchers are not used in crimes either, but they are banned as well. We can do this all day. My justification is that I believe that certain guns should not be permitted to be out on the streets and that there are plenty of other choice weapons out there to choose from for hunting, ranges, and home defense. Beyond that, we don't even know specifically which guns are being talked about here since the information is so vague. Overall though, I don't care much and I find it to be a very small priority compared to all of our problems at hand. I think Amendment 2 radicals are getting their panties tied in a knot for nothing and that Obama mostly just wants to close loopholes which most of those radicals should perfer to see closed anyways because it is due to those loopholes that your rights would ever even mildly be threatened in the future. Hell, one could even argue that Obama is a great thing for 2nd Amendment supporters. He wants to get rid of the loopholes which are more threatening to your rights than any politician ever could be and he has stated that he wants to do it without taking away anything that hunters or those who value self defense using fire arms value.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TravisT
After Obama gets out of office it will be a crime to buy guns. So I'm not shocked that CNN would go ahead and put this topic under crime. Everyone knows what's coming.

You're an idiot if you actually believe that is what he wants or that it would actually happen even if by some left field chance that it really is what he wants.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Noted. Still doesn't change my position though.

what's your justification?

under Supreme Court precedent, a law has to bear a rational basis to its goal. if the goal is to prevent crime, what is the rational basis in banning guns that simply aren't used in crime?

Rocket Launchers are not used in crimes either, but they are banned as well. We can do this all day. My justification is that I believe that certain guns should not be permitted to be out on the streets and that there are plenty of other choice weapons out there to choose from for hunting, ranges, and home defense. Beyond that, we don't even know specifically which guns are being talked about here since the information is so vague. Overall though, I don't care much and I find it to be a very small priority compared to all of our problems at hand. I think Amendment 2 radicals are getting their panties tied in a knot for nothing and that Obama mostly just wants to close loopholes which most of those radicals should perfer to see closed anyways because it is due to those loopholes that your rights would ever even mildly be threatened in the future. Hell, one could even argue that Obama is a great thing for 2nd Amendment supporters. He wants to get rid of the loopholes which are more threatening to your rights than any politician ever could be and he has stated that he wants to do it without taking away anything that hunters or those who value self defense using fire arms value.

Rocket launchers are most definitely not banned. If you can pass the background check, same as for any other gun, and have the money, you can buy it. There are guys with 5" naval deck cannons.

Live RPGs and grenades

100% legal. But never heard of them being used in a crime.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: NeoV
I agree Slow - my mistake - I'm more concerned with higher-caliber weapons, like .50 caliber rifles...though to be honest I'm not sure why people need AR-15's and the like, I'm not at all calling for a ban on them

Would you please show the last time a .50 was used in a crime? Criminals are too poor to afford the ammunition for a .50 anyway.

I think I've seen him and others make this argument multitudes of times on this forum, and it usually ends right here.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, I think the Democrats have learned their lesson about gun control and about the consequences for not supporting the Second Amendment. They'd be fools to revive any anti-gun actions now, and it would surprise me if they did. I for one, fully support our 2nd Amendment and have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning whatever weapon they want. I only wish the NRA supporters also supported the ACLU as much as I support both. After all, there's a lot of Amendments out there to defend, not just the 2nd.

Because "red staters" are not as dumb as people think they are?

ACLU POSITION


Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustic.../35904res20020304.html

Did you not read and/or understand the part wherein they do not take a position on gun control itself? Frankly, the ACLU doesn't NEED to get involved in the 2nd amendment since the NRA has it handled quite nicely, thank you very much.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
Buying Guns for a worsening Economy is stupid. That money is far more useful elsewhere, like Paying off Debt, upgrading one's Education/Training, Cash Reserves in case one loses their Job, stocking up on Food/Supplies, and other things.

Supplies such as guns and ammo?

Which will gather dust, be used at a range, or resold if you are lucky enough to hit the market at the right time. To compare the necessity of food supplies to guns and ammo is utterly retarded. A sure sign of an unhealthy extremist obsession.

Trust me my friend, if you ever NEED those food supplies you will NEED those guns/ammo as well. I witnessed it right here in the good ole US of A first hand.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: NeoV
yah, cause so many of you need to have an AR-15, even though about .05% of you would have any idea of what to even do with one

you gun freaks never cease to amaze me with your one-sided view of this issue

while I completely agree that the previous assault-weapon ban was not nearly as well defined as it should have been, can you seriously tell me why people need to be able to buy weapons such as an AR-15?

I already planned to buy one before all this post-election nonsense. Why? Well, as a Reservist, I plan to use the AR15 in an M4 configuration to practice shooting between deployments. Army Reservists don't get enough time on ranges otherwise. I already have an M11 to practice with as well...

The point I'm trying to make is that there are plenty of legitimate uses for AR15s -- my plans are just one example. Hell, it's just a single-shot hunting rifle with lighter parts and a longer magazine... what's wrong with that!? .223 is a very common sport and varmint load.

What's your objection to the AR-15 in particular? Please be specific.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
Buying Guns for a worsening Economy is stupid. That money is far more useful elsewhere, like Paying off Debt, upgrading one's Education/Training, Cash Reserves in case one loses their Job, stocking up on Food/Supplies, and other things.

Supplies such as guns and ammo?

Which will gather dust, be used at a range, or resold if you are lucky enough to hit the market at the right time. To compare the necessity of food supplies to guns and ammo is utterly retarded. A sure sign of an unhealthy extremist obsession.

Trust me my friend, if you ever NEED those food supplies you will NEED those guns/ammo as well. I witnessed it right here in the good ole US of A first hand.

Sigh...obviously if the entire country is starving then people will panic and get violent but that is not what we are talking about here at all and nor is such a thing even a potential threat right now. Sandorski was talking about the case where people are lacking money due to a bad economy. If you lack money, you buy what you need to survive. We are no where even remotely close to some ridiculous violent panic or revolution. Comparing food supplies to gun supplies right now is dumb.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Comparing food supplies to gun supplies right now is dumb.

For many of us, planning for such a time very much includes both.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: NeoV
yah, cause so many of you need to have an AR-15, even though about .05% of you would have any idea of what to even do with one

you gun freaks never cease to amaze me with your one-sided view of this issue

while I completely agree that the previous assault-weapon ban was not nearly as well defined as it should have been, can you seriously tell me why people need to be able to buy weapons such as an AR-15?

Why do you "need" a computer, or a big screen TV or a fancy car?

I don't recall having to justify my needs and wants in the free market in the United States of America. This is not the USSR (well it wasn't before Nov 4th...).

Tell me how many criminals save up $900 to buy an AR-15 so they can go out and rob someone at an ATM for $60 hmmk?

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: TravisT
After Obama gets out of office it will be a crime to buy guns. So I'm not shocked that CNN would go ahead and put this topic under crime. Everyone knows what's coming.

You're an idiot if you actually believe that is what he wants or that it would actually happen even if by some left field chance that it really is what he wants.

It's good to see that the personal attacks are still welcome here! I just think you are misinformed about his track record on gun control. I agree, he probably wouldn't be able to get it passed and it was more sarcasm than anything else, but if you don't think that he wouldn't push for something like this, you must have your head under a rock.

 

[NeoV]

Look folks, calm down - for about the 50th time, I'm not for a gun ban in the US - I'm not a gun grabber either.

I corrected my first statement about AR-15's, - while I don't understand the need for someone to own one, I'm not at all calling for a ban on them.

As for the 'show me one time they've been used in a crime' question about .50 caliber weapons - ask the Mexican police about that, and ask yourself this question - why are we one of the only countries on the planet to sell them to just about anyone? At some point, if a gun is capable of bringing down small aircraft, do we need to be selling them to anyone who wants to buy one?

As for the childish "do you need a computer" comparison - guns are not in the same category as other 'collectibles', don't try to pretend they are.


My problem with guns, more precisely gun violence in the United States, is very simple - no one is doing anything about it. Any mention of a word that might be remotely construed to turn into a ban of any kind, and you have stuff like this going on - people rushing out to buy weapons - which I'll agree in many cases have been poorly labeled as 'assault weapons', when in all likelyhood there is very little chance of anything legally changing in regards to purchasing guns.

Yes, criminals don't usually buy guys from gun dealers, but the people that sell guns to criminals do - and we have yet to put any kind of process in place to slow this down. If we make it harder for criminals to get guns, there will be fewer crimes committed with guns - it's really that simple, but we do nothing about it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: TravisT
After Obama gets out of office it will be a crime to buy guns. So I'm not shocked that CNN would go ahead and put this topic under crime. Everyone knows what's coming.

You're an idiot if you actually believe that is what he wants or that it would actually happen even if by some left field chance that it really is what he wants.

It's good to see that the personal attacks are still welcome here! I just think you are misinformed about his track record on gun control. I agree, he probably wouldn't be able to get it passed and it was more sarcasm than anything else, but if you don't think that he wouldn't push for something like this, you must have your head under a rock.

I am familiar with his track record and it shows nothing that would lead to it becoming a crime to purchase a fire arm which is precisely what you are stating. Speculating and joking around like that is not healthy for this country. It either does nothing or acts as something counter productive. It does nothing good and people will take you seriously whether you like it or not so try to be more responsible with your choice in words and jokes because they do have an influence.

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Comparing food supplies to gun supplies right now is dumb.

For many of us, planning for such a time very much includes both.

It all comes down to probability and the probability of such a disaster occurring that justifies your cautious preparing for some kind of violent "revolution" is very low. Lower than the probability of many other problems that are more likely to occur but my guess is that you are not preparing for those. For example, it is far more likely that you will temporarily lose a source of your income due to lack of employment or a business going under right now than a massive violent revolution as people all over the US kill each other for food. Yet...instead of saving for a rainy day you spend it all on guns and ammo? No, sorry, but that does not compute. You would be better off saving that money than purchasing guns and ammo right now if you are concerned about preparing for the future.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: NeoV
At some point, if a gun is capable of bringing down small aircraft, do we need to be selling them to anyone who wants to buy one?

Any gun is "capable" of bringing down small aircraft. Even a .22 Short could bring down a small aircraft with a lucky shot if the aircraft were flying near enough to the ground.

The only known uses of .50-caliber weapons in downing aircraft have been military aircraft using fully-automatic machine guns spraying fire while in combat against other aircraft, and as sniper fire on stationary aircraft (i.e., on the ground) on enemy airfields. Not even the military's best sharp shooters are going to hit an aircraft from the ground when the aircraft is flying between 150-500 miles per hour.

ZV

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Look folks, calm down - for about the 50th time, I'm not for a gun ban in the US - I'm not a gun grabber either.

I corrected my first statement about AR-15's, - while I don't understand the need for someone to own one, I'm not at all calling for a ban on them.

As for the 'show me one time they've been used in a crime' question about .50 caliber weapons - ask the Mexican police about that, and ask yourself this question - why are we one of the only countries on the planet to sell them to just about anyone? At some point, if a gun is capable of bringing down small aircraft, do we need to be selling them to anyone who wants to buy one?

As for the childish "do you need a computer" comparison - guns are not in the same category as other 'collectibles', don't try to pretend they are.


My problem with guns, more precisely gun violence in the United States, is very simple - no one is doing anything about it. Any mention of a word that might be remotely construed to turn into a ban of any kind, and you have stuff like this going on - people rushing out to buy weapons - which I'll agree in many cases have been poorly labeled as 'assault weapons', when in all likelyhood there is very little chance of anything legally changing in regards to purchasing guns.

Yes, criminals don't usually buy guys from gun dealers, but the people that sell guns to criminals do - and we have yet to put any kind of process in place to slow this down. If we make it harder for criminals to get guns, there will be fewer crimes committed with guns - it's really that simple, but we do nothing about it.

The US is the one who sold them to the Mexican police. With rampant corruption, no surprise they end up getting used against them.

And as far as shooting down aircraft, just not happening. The .50BMG has been around since the end of WWI and yes, has been used to shoot down aircraft. But they weren't using single shot rifles. AA guns were quad barreled systems firing thousands of rounds a minute before getting a hit in.

Occasionally those AA systems come up for sale (usually Israeli surplus) and have never seen one used to shoot down civilian aircraft.