Should .50 Cal weapons be banned?

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

No, that's different. Only americans deserve any rights.

I thought Dubya had explained to us that we had to give up that notion in order to fight the War on Terror.

Well everybody else has the right to love freedom. It is our duty to help them love freedom just like us.

This ad space for sale.

[pop 0]

Quote

That line is already drawn. Machineguns, RPG's, and their owners, have to be approved by, and registered with, the BATF. You can own them, but you have to jump through some hoops to do so.

Why do you have to jump through the hoops to own these weapons?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Quote

That line is already drawn. Machineguns, RPG's, and their owners, have to be approved by, and registered with, the BATF. You can own them, but you have to jump through some hoops to do so.

Why do you have to jump through the hoops to own these weapons?

because making machine guns illegal is considered bad by the constitution. Instead, they just regulated and taxed them until nobody wanted to go though the trouble to own one.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

That line is already drawn. Machineguns, RPG's, and their owners, have to be approved by, and registered with, the BATF. You can own them, but you have to jump through some hoops to do so.

Why do you have to jump through the hoops to own these weapons?

Because the federal government says so. The law, called the "National Firearm Act", or NFA for short, was enacted in the 1930's, as a result of the machinegun crimes of gangsters in the roaring 20's.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

no, .50s should not be banned. People who belive banning ownership of an object will prevent bad people from commiting crimes with that object are delusional.

Your own government headed by Bush wants to ban bad people leading countries from having nuclear weapons so that they cannot do bad things with them. Is Bush delusional in your opinion?

I'm afraid you turned things around a bit in your zeal to bash Bush, so the logic just doesn't work.

In the first case you have people who want to ban ownership of something from good people, in the mistaken belief that it will somehow keep bad people from getting them.

In your twisted version, you have someone trying to ban ownership of a very dangerous thing from a national leader who you admit yourself is a bad person.

There's nothing illogical about trying to ban things that can be used for evil from bad people. Thus, Bush is not delusional.

So, apparently you are either;
1) comfortable with bad people having nuclear weapons, or;
2) you agree with Bush.

I'll bet #2 bothers you more than #1...

[billvon 2,469]

>In the first case you have people who want to ban ownership
>of something from good people . . .

So would you be OK banning gun ownership by bad people? Say, loudmouthed braggarts?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

I'm afraid you turned things around a bit in your zeal to bash Bush, so the logic just doesn't work.

In the first case you have people who want to ban ownership of something from good people, in the mistaken belief that it will somehow keep bad people from getting them.

Of course the US government gets to decide who is good and whois bad...

Your historical track record on that decision making process has been pretty bad....

Didn't the US sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Doesn't that mean they really also don't want the good people to get or expand them either?

How much would the US help Mexico acquire nuclear weapons?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So would you be OK banning gun ownership by bad people?

Yes. That's already the law, and I agree with it.

Quote

Say, loudmouthed braggarts?

I would not define loud braggarts as "bad" people unworthy of gun ownership.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejabber is far worse than just a loud braggart. When you threaten to annihilate a sovereign country, amongst other things, that definitely tips you over from the "braggart" category into the "bad" category. I'm sure he's even on Santa's list.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Of course the US government gets to decide who is good and whois bad...

Let's see if you can answer a simple, straight question:

Do you want the current leader of Iran to possess nuclear bombs?
Yes or No? Why?

If 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.

[billvon 2,469]

>When you threaten to annihilate a sovereign country, amongst
>other things, that definitely tips you over from the "braggart"
>category into the "bad" category.

So threatening to destroy a country makes you bad. How about invading a foreign country and killing tens of thousands of innocent people? Or killing a few hundred thousand civilians with WMD's? Wouldn't that be worse than someone who just TALKS about doing those things?

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That line is already drawn. Machineguns, RPG's, and their owners, have to be approved by, and registered with, the BATF. You can own them, but you have to jump through some hoops to do so.

Why do you have to jump through the hoops to own these weapons?

Because the federal government says so. The law, called the "National Firearm Act", or NFA for short, was enacted in the 1930's, as a result of the machinegun crimes of gangsters in the roaring 20's.

But 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?

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Botellines 0]

If 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)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

So would you be OK banning gun ownership by bad people?

Yes. They are referred to as "convicted felons."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Your own government headed by Bush wants to ban bad people leading countries from having nuclear weapons so that they cannot do bad things with them. Is Bush delusional in your opinion?

First off, you completely ignored the second half of my statement. You know, the part that proves my point.

Quote

no, .50s should not be banned. People who believe banning ownership of an object will prevent bad people from committing crimes with that object are delusional. Anyone care to guess whether convicted felons (who are banned from owning firearms) still commit crimes with guns? I think that just maybe it might be a "yes."

Second, my point referred to objects that are available to private citizens on the open market and available on the black market where they are banned. The IRA didn't have much trouble getting one into Ireland, did they? (of course, they couldn't use it worth a damn, but that's irrelevant here)

Nukes don't fall into the realm of common and privately available commodities.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

That line is already drawn. Machineguns, RPG's, and their owners, have to be approved by, and registered with, the BATF. You can own them, but you have to jump through some hoops to do so.

Why do you have to jump through the hoops to own these weapons?

Because the federal government says so. The law, called the "National Firearm Act", or NFA for short, was enacted in the 1930's, as a result of the machinegun crimes of gangsters in the roaring 20's.

But 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?

Exactly, the distinction is silly.

Machine guns should be as easy to get as .50 caliber rifles and Saturday Night specials without the registration, transfer tax, and prohibition on those made after 1986 which blew prices through the roof ($10-$15K+ for a registered receiver M16 with only a couple parts missing from the $800 semi-auto model is ludicrous)

[billvon 2,469]

>Yes. They are referred to as "convicted felons."

No, 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.)

[kallend 1,677]

Quote

Quote

Of course the US government gets to decide who is good and whois bad...

Let's see if you can answer a simple, straight question:

Do you want the current leader of Iran to possess nuclear bombs?
Yes or No? Why?

If 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.

I don't. I don't want Bush to have them either. Or Chirac. Or Putin. Or Blair. And especially not Kim Jeong Il.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

But 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?

I don't think machine guns should be illegal either.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Let's see if you can answer a simple, straight question:

Do you want the current leader of Iran to possess nuclear bombs?
Yes or No? Why?

No, I don't.

But then, I wasn't the one who first stated the logic proclaimed above and telling anybody who doesn't agree that they are delusional.

To follow the logic posted above:

It wouldn't matter if Iran has a nuclear weapon, cause it is only an object. Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. If that makes him a bad person in your eyes, then we have to extend that logic to other things. There are multiple people on here who have threatened and offered to kill people without any form of justice associated with it. In your mind, should those people be considered bad and therefor banned from owning guns?

Is posturing and being a loud mouth enough to be labeled bad?

Quote

If 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.

you funny.

When are you going to answer my question about how much the US would help Mexico acquire a nuclear weapon and several others I have posted above? Or, have you proven yourself uninterested in honest debate, and your comments unworthy of any more serious consideration?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

So 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.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

So would you be OK banning gun ownership by bad people?

Yes. They are referred to as "convicted felons."

So then they've done their time, should they be banned from carrying knifes or screwdrivers in case they stab someone? What about baseball bats? I didn't think you were for gun control Kennedy.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

There several dead Soldiers and Policemen who might disagree.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It wouldn't matter if Iran has a nuclear weapon, cause it is only an object. Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people.

Yes, Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. If that makes him a bad person in your eyes, then we have to extend that logic to other things. There are multiple people on here who have threatened and offered to kill people without any form of justice associated with it. In your mind, should those people be considered bad and therefor banned from owning guns?

Is posturing and being a loud mouth enough to be labeled bad?

Iran also has a history of violence. In America a person with a violent history would not be allowed to own a weapon.

People with violent history's should not be allowed weapons. That I agree with. The problem with most gun control campains is that they are not going to stop criminals, only law abiding people. We have enough gun laws on the books...We need to enforce them, not make new ones.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Iran also has a history of violence. In America a person with a violent history would not be allowed to own a weapon.

The US has a history of violence and therefor should also not be allowed to own nuclear weapons under that argument.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The US has a history of violence and therefor should also not be allowed to own nuclear weapons under that argument.

A major difference. We are not saying we are going to wipe a nation off the face of the earth.

Also, we already have them, and they are not going away. However, in 50 years we have used them once to *stop* a war. In the other 50 years we have been in several other wars and never used them. We are not going to use them. They don't work well for anything other than being a deterent. Thats why NK wants them, and maybe why Iran wants them as well.

However, the rules change a bit when a country states it wants to wipe another off the face of the planet. Not even at the height of the cold war did the US or the USSR say that.

Simple slice of reality here...Nuclear weapons are not going away. But we really need to try and prevent countries with known agendas from getting them.

As for Nuclear power...Give then CANDU reactors all day long. As for weapons no. And I would love to reduce the worlds number of nuclear weapons (this includes the US's) to the smallest number that will prevent anyone from using them. For is one guy has the only one. He will use it as a trump card.