- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.
Nukes would not be needed as no government would use nukes against it's own populace as that would SEVERLY damage their public images with not only its civilians but also it's world image.
And as far as fighter jets why not allow civilians to have them? Assuming that they can pass the flight tests I see no reason to not allow them to have jets. Of course it's not like private airplanes couldn't be outfitted with weapons anyways.
Aircraft carriers? Actually I don't think that there is a law stating that civilians can't have ships that can carry/launch aircraft.
What is the benefit of a baseball bat? Play a game?
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.
A machine gun's danger far outweighs any benefit to normal society. (that's why the NFA regulates them so tightly & has since 1934)
I never bought that argument. If you take that thinking to its logical conclusion, civilians would need nukes, aircraft carriers & jet fighter to have a fair fight against their government.
To me..that's a small, far right "Fringe" argument that very few believe.
One last quick point for now:
By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.
One last quick point for now:
By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.
I'll be back
One last quick point for now:
By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.
One last quick point for now:
By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.
I'll be back
There should be only one absolute requirement for owning a fire arm, and that is completion of an appropriate fire arm safety course.
Oh come on, I think that really is just common sense. No one is born with proper training. All our soldiers get that training.I don't even like that because you can then make it so the class is once a year at some horrible time people can't make or that it costs exorbitant amounts of money, thus creating an effective backdoor ban on firearms.
Oh come on, I think that really is just common sense. No one is born with proper training. All our soldiers get that training.
There should be only one absolute requirement for owning a fire arm, and that is completion of an appropriate fire arm safety course.
They tried REAL HARD & severely wounded many including cops who they outgunned at the time.
What a silly argument....Are you saying these guys didn't present a lethal danger to the city for quite a while?
Ever had a gun pointed at you?
An appeal to authority is nothing but a fallacy argument.
The fact is reasonable is subjective. So it proves little. I mean even I think some reasonable laws are OK. I think yours are unreasonable.
So the bottom line is we both agree that reasonable gun control laws are "OK". Politics is the art of compromise so all we have to do is negotiate our differences & decide what gun control laws are reasonable & which one are unreasonable.
What I totally disagree with is the minority who believe that no gun controls are ever reasonable. That is a totally unreasonable opinion, imo.
So the bottom line is we both agree that reasonable gun control laws are "OK". Politics is the art of compromise so all we have to do is negotiate our differences & decide what gun control laws are reasonable & which one are unreasonable.
What I totally disagree with is the minority who believe that no gun controls are ever reasonable. That is a totally unreasonable opinion, imo.
Example:
Background checks...For those who do not oppose checking to see if a potential gun buyer is a felon/pedophile, the question is how long is reasonable to allow government to perform a background check b4 you can buy that weapon?
I'd say that 1 month would be unreasonable & to long
I'd say that 1 week is reasonable
This is the type of thing legislatures can thrash out.
Ok, here's the compromise: I'll carry open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, any pistol or rifle, without limitation, even onto public school grounds, without official record or permit.
In return, you get mandatory gun-ed classes in the school to support the "every American is a rifleman first" culture and a nationalized gun-care program.
So the bottom line is we both agree that reasonable gun control laws are "OK". Politics is the art of compromise so all we have to do is negotiate our differences & decide what gun control laws are reasonable & which one are unreasonable.
What I totally disagree with is the minority who believe that no gun controls are ever reasonable. That is a totally unreasonable opinion, imo.
Example:
Background checks...For those who do not oppose checking to see if a potential gun buyer is a felon/pedophile, the question is how long is reasonable to allow government to perform a background check b4 you can buy that weapon?
I'd say that 1 month would be to long & therefore unreasonable.
I'd say that 1 week is reasonable
This is the type of thing legislatures can thrash out.
Would be nice...."every American is a rifleman first"....has a nice ring to it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?