Because when Wikipedia has a quote and a source for a case like it does in that article, it is as credible as anything else. Do you want to prove that those statements don't exist? Go for it. If we were having such a high level of intellectual debate as to exclude the use of an encyclopedia than we probably shouldn't be having it on NES.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Are there any limits to the 2nd amendment?
- Thread starter Bill Nance
- Start date
Because when Wikipedia has a quote and a source for a case like it does in that article, it is as credible as anything else. Do you want to prove that those statements don't exist? Go for it. If we were having such a high level of intellectual debate as to exclude the use of an encyclopedia than we probably shouldn't be having it on NES.
I could steal a van, load it with fertilizer and other fuel and park it somewhere and light it off. What stops me? Well, my morality and I'm not a criminal.
I shouldn't have restrictions on what type of tools or fun I enjoy.
Don't legislate me into a criminal because I like big black, scary looking guns.
I shouldn't have restrictions on what type of tools or fun I enjoy.
Don't legislate me into a criminal because I like big black, scary looking guns.
So perhaps more laws or less rights would have stopped him?
We'll never live in a crime free world until there are so many laws and restrictions on our rights that we're all criminals and no longer care.
Well, you're half right- it's only an obstacle to the lawful citizen- criminals have little to no difficulty getting guns in MA, or just about anywhere else, for that matter. The only thing that limits them is whether or not they have the money/dope/stolen goods to trade for a firearm.
There's a big difference between prohibition of an object and prohibition of a unwarranted violent act.
Restricting gun possession is "malum prohibitum"; "it's illegal only because it's illegal" as opposed to something like murder which is considered "inherently wrong by nature". Laws restricting gun possession are not even in the same ballpark as laws against rape, murder, etc.
I agree that even if guns were readily available to every adult in the US that bad people would still be shooting
each other.
FWIW I'll even go so far as to say that even if public gun ownership was proven to lead to slightly more crime, I'm still willing to bear that "cost" - because the alternative to me (defenseless citizens) is MORE morally objectionable. (Although, as research by Kleck, Lott, etc, shows, this clearly is not the case- and rather crime is linked to other factors rather than the number of guns that exist in the US, or the number of private owners of those guns. )
This "cost" is similar to the cost we pay when a court has to let a scumbag go free on a technicality because a LEO/DA or whoever violated his civil rights. While that "sucks" the alternative of not having those rights, sucks far worse.
-Mike
Last edited:
exactly! Remember, the ultimate goal of all anti's is complete disarmament on the theory that 'if there are no guns, there will be no gun violence'. Which is pure BS because you sure as SH didn't have a non-violent society prior to the invention of guns AND there's a reason why they call guns an 'equalizer'. Take guns out of the equation and you've got a license for the strong to prey on the weak.
Even criminals will have a hard time finding a 20mm anti-tank gun because of legislation. So I'd argue that legislation can stop criminals.
Right, no disagreement here, I was just using that to lead into my next point.
Again, I agree 100%.
SemiAutoSam
Banned
If your referring to the Oklahoma City murrah building bombing.
You dont let logic get in your way do you.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
You dont let logic get in your way do you.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
I don't understand your comment at all. What's illogical about what I wrote which was merely amplifying Eddie Coyle's point? Laws aren't going to prevent anyone from doing anything.
Mark L.
Last edited:
SemiAutoSam
Banned
You are correct but your statement quoted below was illogical.
Your using Timothy McVeigh as an example struck me as a low blow.
The man was executed for being a patsy IMO as referenced by the link posted above.
Sorry I didnt read the post you quoted, IE I went off half cocked so to speak.
Your using Timothy McVeigh as an example struck me as a low blow.
The man was executed for being a patsy IMO as referenced by the link posted above.
Sorry I didnt read the post you quoted, IE I went off half cocked so to speak.
Actually, you do not have zero access to such devices. The reason you do not have them is because you abide by the laws which prohibit private ownership of these sorts of things, not because the laws exist and are written on pieces of paper and floating through cyberspace in the form of electrons.
Were one sufficiently motivated and had the appropriate financial and logistical resources, these devices and even more destructive ones could certainly be appropriated. If traffickers can get tons of cocaine into the US, bringing in a disassembled piece of artillery and reassembling it stateside doesn't sound like too tall an order to fill. I'd be willing to bet that there is an appreciable amount of black-market artillery tucked away here and there throughout the country as we speak.
Fair enough, but I'd find it hard to deny that the legislation, at the least, hasn't made it much more expensive and much more logistically challenging for criminals to do such things.
And because laws make it exceedingly difficult to find those types of people, come up with the resources necessary, and so on.
Those are big "ifs" that exist because of the laws. Those types of weapons wouldn't be so hard to find and expensive and tricky to import if it weren't for the legislation and enforcement.
I would argue that legislation leads to more government which leads to more restrictions and or elimination of rights which leads to oppression and subjugation of the people.
The balance of power at least in this country is supposed to remain in the hands of the people.
The balance of power at least in this country is supposed to remain in the hands of the people.
Just read your history and look at the UK and MA.,CA.,NY.,NJ etc.
There is a quote that goes something like this: "The more laws the more corrupt the government."
Bill Nance
Banned
By this reasoning though, I'd have to argue that a Javelin anti-tank missile would be useful to me
No offense... but you're out of your mind if you believe that.
The laws don't make anything exceedingly difficult for a criminal. They simply don't.
Wrong again. They wouldn't be so hard to find or tricky to import if they weren't so heavily scrutinized as inventory or protected by their owners.
Bill Nance
Banned
I'm perfectly willing to concede that if all guns were made to magically disappear the murder and suicide rates would go down to a degree. But in fact you can't do that, so even an outright 100% gun ban is only going to have a very marginal effect on murder/suicide rates.
(Note, I believe we all have the right to end our lives, so I have no sympathy for the suicide thing, but whatever, I'll play along)
It is certainly a fact that guns make it much easier to kill people. try killing someone with a knife. It can be done, but you're likely to come out of that fight with scars at the least.
The argument here is that some rights have a cost. The right of self defense has a cost: that is, some murders will take place that otherwise might not. The benefit is that I have the ability to defend myself and protect the country from tyranny. That's a trade-off just as the ability to write BS articles in a newspaper has the ability to start an Imperialist war (Spanish-American War/Hearst). The benefit outweighs the inevitable cost of misuse.
I can't make that argument with unrestricted access to high explosives/hand grenades.
There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S. so a ban couldn't be imposed even if you tried.
However there are not and have not been for many many decades, large amounts of hand grenades, c4, etc in private hands absent government licenses, strict controls on storage, security, etc.
The simple lack of availability of these items makes them extremely uncommon items used by criminals. Sure, a dedicated, capable criminal can get their hands on these, but face it folks, 99% of criminals are both stupid and not capable at all.
Seriously: Who the hell robs a liquor store? You get maybe $100, you run a very serious risk of being caught (video surveillance, witnesses etc.) and you go to jail for a long time if/when you get caught. Whio dies it? drug-addled people and idiots. Jails have always been full of both.
The standard gun-control argument is that reducing guns will reduce the use of them by average street criminals, not massive conspiracies pulled off by pros. The latter is a straw man and no intelligent anti would argue it.
So as far as arguing that common possession of say hand grenades/c4/blasting caps with no restrictions wouldn't result in higher body counts, I don't see how the argument holds up. And lets face it folks, the chance of an armed revolution in this country in the forseeable future is remote.
If there WERE a revolution, guerrillas would obtain grenades, rocket launchers, etc the same way they have in every other insurgency: Kill a soldier and take HIS. I can make an excellent argument that keeping my small arms makes me more able to do this at a minimal cost to society, plus it has other benefit, namely self defense from criminals. The cost to society from easy availability of explosives on the other hand, (simple housebreaking results in lots of illegal guns on the street, I don't think that can be denied) is not so easily argued.
The obvious counter to the less guns = less street thugs using them argument is that with 250 million guns in this country, even an outright ban wouldn't take guns away from criminals to any meaningful degree and that it would only make the government the sole arbiter of all things with no recourse whatever to the citizenry to resist.
I don't think I can make that argument convincing about heavy ordinance.
(Note, I believe we all have the right to end our lives, so I have no sympathy for the suicide thing, but whatever, I'll play along)
It is certainly a fact that guns make it much easier to kill people. try killing someone with a knife. It can be done, but you're likely to come out of that fight with scars at the least.
The argument here is that some rights have a cost. The right of self defense has a cost: that is, some murders will take place that otherwise might not. The benefit is that I have the ability to defend myself and protect the country from tyranny. That's a trade-off just as the ability to write BS articles in a newspaper has the ability to start an Imperialist war (Spanish-American War/Hearst). The benefit outweighs the inevitable cost of misuse.
I can't make that argument with unrestricted access to high explosives/hand grenades.
There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S. so a ban couldn't be imposed even if you tried.
However there are not and have not been for many many decades, large amounts of hand grenades, c4, etc in private hands absent government licenses, strict controls on storage, security, etc.
The simple lack of availability of these items makes them extremely uncommon items used by criminals. Sure, a dedicated, capable criminal can get their hands on these, but face it folks, 99% of criminals are both stupid and not capable at all.
Seriously: Who the hell robs a liquor store? You get maybe $100, you run a very serious risk of being caught (video surveillance, witnesses etc.) and you go to jail for a long time if/when you get caught. Whio dies it? drug-addled people and idiots. Jails have always been full of both.
The standard gun-control argument is that reducing guns will reduce the use of them by average street criminals, not massive conspiracies pulled off by pros. The latter is a straw man and no intelligent anti would argue it.
So as far as arguing that common possession of say hand grenades/c4/blasting caps with no restrictions wouldn't result in higher body counts, I don't see how the argument holds up. And lets face it folks, the chance of an armed revolution in this country in the forseeable future is remote.
If there WERE a revolution, guerrillas would obtain grenades, rocket launchers, etc the same way they have in every other insurgency: Kill a soldier and take HIS. I can make an excellent argument that keeping my small arms makes me more able to do this at a minimal cost to society, plus it has other benefit, namely self defense from criminals. The cost to society from easy availability of explosives on the other hand, (simple housebreaking results in lots of illegal guns on the street, I don't think that can be denied) is not so easily argued.
The obvious counter to the less guns = less street thugs using them argument is that with 250 million guns in this country, even an outright ban wouldn't take guns away from criminals to any meaningful degree and that it would only make the government the sole arbiter of all things with no recourse whatever to the citizenry to resist.
I don't think I can make that argument convincing about heavy ordinance.
Am I? Because simple economics say that they will be much more expensive, and obviously it is logistically harder to get an item into a country that bans said item. I don't see how that makes me "out-of-my-mind" other than that I'm stating the obvious.
Really? So how does your average street bum go about getting a howitzer? Let's even assume he has the money to do so.
And one would argue they are heavily scrutinzed as inventory and heavily protected because there are serious legal penalties and consequences if such armaments get into the wrong hands.
^^ Its not about availability its about the practicality.
So what you are suggesting is a weak argument, and you need to look only at the influx of 50 BMG rifles being found in caches in Mexico City.
It is being suggested that the reason that they are not using that particular tool in their battles are that they simply dont have the time, training, discipline and patience for them. The weapons are not practical for their needs at this time, but given time, who knows?
But they've got cached arms all over the place from high grade stuff to Grenades, Armament and a lot of military tools.
Do you think for a moment that Americans aren't doing the same or are incapable of the same?
All you need are a few crooked (or true believers) in a military supply chain.
Do your research. "The average bum" can buy one legally in most states as long as he pays the NFA tax for a destructive device.
You must be amazed that they're not being used to shoot up schools on a daily basis.
Thousands of pounds of illegal drugs are shipped into this country every year. Yet they're expensive and illegal. But they still make it here. This has little to do with "simple economics." You're making statements in a vacuum, ignoring other factors involved including corruption.
How would any of us get a howitzer assuming we had the money? It's all in who you know. If you want something bad enough, you find a way to get it. You know... like a tank. It's happened before, and it will probably happen again.
And that one would be wrong. The value of the items alone warrant their scrutiny. At best you're incompetent, and are responsible for millions of dollars worth of equipment being lost/stolen/sold. It has less to do with legality than you assume.
Yup..... here's a perfect example.... (we need one of these for the next Car Shoot, IMHO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYqGVkU02E
IIRC this thing costs about $75 a shot just to run the thing, and that's for shells that don't even explode. (when you see explosions, those are from tannerite on the targets. ) I'm sure criminals are lining up in droves to buy howitzers, too.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
-Mike
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Yup..... here's a perfect example.... (we need one of these for the next Car Shoot, IMHO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYqGVkU02E
IIRC this thing costs about $75 a shot just to run the thing, and that's for shells that don't even explode. (when you see explosions, those are from tannerite on the targets. ) I'm sure criminals are lining up in droves to buy howitzers, too.
-Mike
I know a guy with a Sherman with a functioning turret and gun. He shoots them off at shows in the NE (but I doubt here in MA). He is up in Barton VT. I would call him but he screwed me over on something years ago and I haven't spoken to him since. He has to mill out shells because none are available and he buys replacement brass at army navy stores where they are sitting as decorative pieces.
And likely also amazed at the amount of NFA hardware out there that is not registered.
And it isn't practical to obtain such weapons when there are such massive restrictions in place.
And nukes, and bombs? And please stop delving into the personal attacks.
They're expensive because they are illegal. There's added risk to the transporters of the drugs, and so they charge a higher price. There have been dozens of articles about this. When there is a risk of someone going to jail for doing something, there's a premium they charge for doing it.
Yes, and my point is simply that it would probably be far easier if you didn't have to "know someone" to get one.
I won't claim to know all the laws surrounding these weapons, but one would assume I can't just go online and buy a howitzer like I can buy a book from Amazon, simply because there's little to no market for these firearms because of several reasons, and one of them, it seems to me, is legislation that is in place. I'm not taking away from the fact that there are other reasons why these weapons aren't traded otherwise, I'm simply saying that legislation increases the costs associated, and thus makes them harder to obtain.
I've seen enough first-hand, I'm neither surprised nor worried.
I am sure there is a huge number of NFA stuff going under the radar. I bet there are quite a few gun owners even whom without any criminal intent have done things to their guns, perhaps temporarily, making them illegal NFA weapons. I believe I recall hearing of a few instances. It's ridiculous too because even if there is no criminal intent you can still be busted and go to federal ass pound prison for doing nothing wrong. Just another law that helps make criminals out of honest citizens brought to you by our lovely government.
Similar threads
