skymedic 0 #76 January 10, 2007 QuoteHowever, in 50 years we have used them once to *stop* a war. My history book says we used em twice BUT I definately believe we saves thousands of lives by dropping them. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #77 January 10, 2007 QuoteBut guns dont kill....people do. Why make it hard to get a machine gun, but easy to get a .50 cal gun? See what I am getting at? Yes, I do. It's stupid, but Congress often enacts stupid laws. People perceive that machineguns are more dangerous than other firearms, and therefore want extra regulation of them. If the gun-banners can't get an outright ban on .50 caliber rifles, they might move to include them in the NFA for special regulation, i.e., registration and taxes. The more paperwork they can require, the more likely people will have technical paperwork snafus, and therefore the more gun owners that will end up in jail for simple paperwork violations. There are plenty of machinegun owners in jail simply because the government makes mistakes on their registration database. All they have to do is type a serial number incorrectly, and you become an illegal machinegun owner, facing 10 years in prison. That's all-good for the gun-o-phobes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #78 January 10, 2007 QuoteIf you think that to annihilate a sovereign country is bad, what would you call actually annihilatinga s sovereign country? (ie Iraq by the U.S.A, and don´t come with the old it is diferent bs) I think if you Bush-haters try really hard, you can discern a difference between wiping out an entire population and country indiscriminately with nuclear bombs, and invading a country to selectively root-out terrorists. It *is* different, no matter how much you try to believe it isn't. But hey, you're way off-topic from this thread now. There are plenty of Bush-bashing threads elsewhere for you guys to get your jollies in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #79 January 10, 2007 QuoteNo, those are people that DO bad things. John is talking about banning ownership of weapons by people who are just plain bad. (i.e. say bad stuff, have a bad attitude.) Do not put words in my mouth. When you threaten to annihilate a country, and claim to have the capability to do it, or are working on obtaining that capability, that *IS* doing a bad thing. In criminal law at a personal level it would be called assault, and it is a crime. It's the equivalent of saying; "I've got a gun in my pocket and if you don't hand over your wallet I'm going to kill you." It is not the case that saying such things is harmless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #80 January 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo would you be OK banning gun ownership by bad people? Yes. That's already the law, and I agree with it. OK, I'm confused. I thought you were against any form of gun control. You were wrong. I'm only against stupid forms of gun control that don't work, and that includes a large proportion of existing gun laws. The only laws you really need are ones that say something like; "If you kill, hurt or threaten someone, that's a crime." It doesn't matter what tool is used to commit such crimes, and there should be no laws targeting specific tools. But if you use any tool, or just your fists, to kill, hurt or threaten someone, then you should go to jail. All the laws about what types of guns you can own, how many you can buy, registering them on lists, blah blah blah, are all bullshit. The only thing that matters is if you use one to kill, harm or threaten someone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #81 January 10, 2007 John, I asked you some pretty simple and straight forward questions which you have failed to answer. very funny considering earlier in this thread you wrote this to me: QuoteIf you fail to answer the question this time, you'll have proven yourself uninterested in honest debate, and your comments unworthy of any more of my serious consideration. So, eitehr the questions were too difficult for you, or you are uninterested in honest debate. Which one is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #82 January 10, 2007 QuoteSo, eitehr the questions were too difficult for you, or you are uninterested in honest debate. Which one is it? Are you still here? Yeah, you're really concerned about Mexico acquiring nukes. Is that your idea of serious debate? Go outside and play. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #83 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteBut guns dont kill....people do. Why make it hard to get a machine gun, but easy to get a .50 cal gun? See what I am getting at? Yes, I do. It's stupid, but Congress often enacts stupid laws. People perceive that machineguns are more dangerous than other firearms, and therefore want extra regulation of them. If the gun-banners can't get an outright ban on .50 caliber rifles, they might move to include them in the NFA for special regulation, i.e., registration and taxes. The more paperwork they can require, the more likely people will have technical paperwork snafus, and therefore the more gun owners that will end up in jail for simple paperwork violations. There are plenty of machinegun owners in jail simply because the government makes mistakes on their registration database. All they have to do is type a serial number incorrectly, and you become an illegal machinegun owner, facing 10 years in prison. That's all-good for the gun-o-phobes. My point was that there is a reason machine guns are illegal. Same reason can be applied to a .50 cal7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #84 January 11, 2007 QuoteMy point was that there is a reason machine guns are illegal. Same reason can be applied to a .50 cal And mine and others points are that both are wrong. Criminals still have full auto weapons. You could get one easily if you knew how. Conversion kits are readily available...ect. But I can't own one without a class III license. All the law does is make it hard for me to get one, criminals still get them all the time. And most people know that a full auto weapon is only really good in a few situations. They are fun, but a semi auto is a much better choice if you are looking to do real damage, or are in combat. In the US the standard troops have weapons that have three round burst, and then they rarely use it. So the ban really does nothing but make it hard for me to own one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #85 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteMy point was that there is a reason machine guns are illegal. Same reason can be applied to a .50 cal And mine and others points are that both are wrong. Criminals still have full auto weapons. You could get one easily if you knew how. Conversion kits are readily available...ect. But I can't own one without a class III license. All the law does is make it hard for me to get one, criminals still get them all the time. And most people know that a full auto weapon is only really good in a few situations. Whatever you say. In England guns are illegal. Gun crime is almost non existant there. ....and in other countries the trend is the same. So think whatever makes you feel better. edited to say: by the way, I am gun owner. when you minimize the number of guns avaialble to the public (be it legal or not) you still minimize access to the guns even by the "bad" guys. when guns are just not made at all....there is less of them on the streets. the argument that bad guys have access to guns, but good guys dont is simply rediculous.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #86 January 11, 2007 QuoteWhatever you say. In England guns are illegal. Gun crime is almost non existant there. Sorry mate but you're wrong on both points. Gun crime is rising in the UK and guns aren't illegal here only pistols and Semi automatic rifles that aren't rimfire (.22 Semi Automatic rifles are stil legal as are bolt action rifles of all calibres including .50Cal (12.7 mm) revolvers over a certain length are legal as are black powder & nitro revolvers) Having said that the vast amount of gun crime carried out in the UK is by illegal firearms mainly in the 9mm calibre and include attacks with Uzis. 9mm and .45 pistols are the Gansta's weapons of choice. It is very easy to obtain these weapons on the black market and as previously mentioned their use is on the rise. British Police employ armed response vehicles in all areas now and it is quite usual to see British police carriying firearms even though the forces are not fully armed. In the UK 2000 officers are being trained in firearms every eight weeks.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #87 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhatever you say. In England guns are illegal. Gun crime is almost non existant there. Sorry mate but you're wrong on both points. Gun crime is rising in the UK and guns aren't illegal here only pistols and Semi automatic rifles that aren't rimfire (.22 Semi Automatic rifles are stil legal as are bolt action rifles of all calibres including .50Cal (12.7 mm) revolvers over a certain length are legal as are black powder & nitro revolvers) Having said that the vast amount of gun crime carried out in the UK is by illegal firearms mainly in the 9mm calibre and include attacks with Uzis. 9mm and .45 pistols are the Gansta's weapons of choice. It is very easy to obtain these weapons on the black market and as previously mentioned their use is on the rise. British Police employ armed response vehicles in all areas now and it is quite usual to see British police carriying firearms even though the forces are not fully armed. In the UK 2000 officers are being trained in firearms every eight weeks. It's been a while since I've looked at my stats. In that case...any weapons shuold be game. That makes sense.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #88 January 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut guns dont kill....people do. Why make it hard to get a machine gun, but easy to get a .50 cal gun? See what I am getting at? Yes, I do. It's stupid, but Congress often enacts stupid laws. People perceive that machineguns are more dangerous than other firearms, and therefore want extra regulation of them. If the gun-banners can't get an outright ban on .50 caliber rifles, they might move to include them in the NFA for special regulation, i.e., registration and taxes. The more paperwork they can require, the more likely people will have technical paperwork snafus, and therefore the more gun owners that will end up in jail for simple paperwork violations. There are plenty of machinegun owners in jail simply because the government makes mistakes on their registration database. All they have to do is type a serial number incorrectly, and you become an illegal machinegun owner, facing 10 years in prison. That's all-good for the gun-o-phobes. My point was that there is a reason machine guns are illegal. Same reason can be applied to a .50 cal Machine guns are not illegal!!!!! doh!!!! They can be legally purchased if you have a tax stamp for it which is applied for on a form 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #89 January 11, 2007 QuoteMy point was that there is a reason machine guns are illegal. Same reason can be applied to a .50 cal They're not illegal, just highly regulated. And the reason for that is that some people are scared of them, justifiably or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #90 January 11, 2007 QuoteSorry mate but you're wrong on both points. Gun crime is rising in the UK... Having said that the vast amount of gun crime carried out in the UK is by illegal firearms... It is very easy to obtain these weapons on the black market... Thank you. Gosh, when I say things like that, people come unglued. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #91 January 12, 2007 QuoteWhatever you say. In England guns are illegal. Gun crime is almost non existant there. ....and in other countries the trend is the same. So think whatever makes you feel better. Yet even being illegal they still have gun crime. Whatever makes you feel better. Quotethe argument that bad guys have access to guns, but good guys dont is simply rediculous. Showing that there is gun crime in England and in NY says otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #92 January 12, 2007 QuoteAre you still here? Yeah, you're really concerned about Mexico acquiring nukes. Is that your idea of serious debate? No, it was a serious question. Now, if you would answer it, maybe we can get to the serious debate after Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #93 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you still here? Yeah, you're really concerned about Mexico acquiring nukes. Is that your idea of serious debate? No, it was a serious question. Now, if you would answer it, maybe we can get to the serious debate after This thread is about .50 caliber rifles. If you want to talk about a nuclear-armed Mexico, feel free to start your own thread on that unrelated subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #94 January 12, 2007 You "demanded" answers to your question, yet you refuse to answer any questions yourself. Obviously you have no interest in an actual debate, discussion or maybe even general conversation. You're like the energizer bunny, but in stead of beating a drum, you just shout GUN, GUN, GUN, GUN ... . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MuffDiver 0 #95 January 12, 2007 I think .50 Cal weapons should be banned. __________________________________________________ Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #96 January 12, 2007 QuoteYou "demanded" answers to your question, yet you refuse to answer any questions yourself. Obviously you have no interest in an actual debate, discussion or maybe even general conversation. You never answered if cars should be banned to stop people from running red lights. So does this apply to you as well? Or are you and John the only two allowed to ask questions? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2613275#2613275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #97 January 13, 2007 QuoteYou "demanded" answers to your question, yet you refuse to answer any questions yourself. Obviously you have no interest in an actual debate, discussion or maybe even general conversation. You can't seem to comprehend that the questions actually have to relate to the topic of conversation. I'm not going to play silly games with you by answering unrelated questions about Mexico acquiring nukes. Why don't you quit throwing your silly tantrum, and say something relevant. Then maybe we can talk. But you got beat down rather badly with that "red light" analogy, so I recommend you think about what you want to say, before you post it. By the way, if you don't hear from me for several days, it's not necessarily because I'm intentionally ignoring you - I'm off to try and have fun all weekend, if the weather cooperates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #98 January 13, 2007 QuoteI think .50 Cal weapons should be banned. Why?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #99 January 15, 2007 QuoteYou can't seem to comprehend that the questions actually have to relate to the topic of conversation. I'm not going to play silly games with you by answering unrelated questions about Mexico acquiring nukes. You seem to forget that the question you demanded me to answer was in relation to whether I thought Iran should acquire nukes. hence, in this thing you call "silly games" you wanted your questions answered, but in relation to the same "silly game" you won't answer my questions. Don't think we should ban red lights, don't think the US should ban guns either. Don't understand the double standard though when it comes to objects don't kill people, people kill people, yet you are in favour of banning certain objects under the same reasoning. That is what I was trying to argue, discuss with you. So far you have been utterly unable to do so. Hope you had a decent weekend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #100 January 15, 2007 Quotein relation to the same "silly game" you won't answer my questions. Why do you need me to answer your questions, anyway? If you have some point to make, just say it. You don't need me for that. Quit whining and say your piece. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
