SAU wrote:Bet you didn't read this far because you know your arguments are weak
pvolcko wrote:You really are the master of the straw-man argument, aren't you? Depleted uranium ammo? Tax exemption? Ranges shooting across a highway? For someone supposedly wanting to discuss "common sense" gun control laws you sure like to throw a lot of non-sense argument points out there.
pvolcko wrote:If I wanted to break the law I could probably get a handgun inside of an hour, definitely in one day. If I were willing to steal from a family member I could have one in 15 minutes. No background check, no waiting period, probably at relatively low cost, and "untraceable" in that my name isn't going to be attached to the gun in any way.
pvolcko wrote:To do it legally in this state and county takes between 3 and 6 months, and that permit will likely only allow sporting use or on premises use of the gun, not concealed carry. To get a new handgun once the permit is granted takes at least two trips to the gun shop and one to the licensing office, basically half a day of running back and forth.
pvolcko wrote:Increasing gun control laws is not going to make it easier for criminals to get guns or ammo or make anyone "more safe" from criminals, it only makes it harder for law abiding people to get these things and thus makes those people less safe. Reducing gun control laws also doesn't make it any easier for the criminal to acquire, but it does help the law abiding.
pvolcko wrote:I do not understand them to be that. I said they are that "in part", not "in total". They do represent gun owners on constitutional issues.
pvolcko wrote:They aren't a perfect organization and certainly they do lobby in part for things that benefit the gun industry, but much of those issues are equally beneficial to the people and the general membership.
pvolcko wrote:I do believe the NRA is mainly interested in protecting gun owners, hunters, and shooting sports.
djackman wrote:These conceptual questions are avoiding the subject which is further restrictions on currently legal to purchase/own firearms. If it's legal to privately own and make operational a 88mm canon then so be it. Again, I don't view the "hardware" as a threat but rather the person behind it. If you own a large bulldozer, should you be prohibited from buying steel plate and tubing since you could armor plate it and make a cannon? Jeeze
SuperBeetle wrote:So, does anyone think these should be classified as assault weapons?
SuperBeetle wrote:"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."
--Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007
Devil505 wrote:I think we are arguing in circles here Paul. I've already explained my thinking in terms of weighing a dangerous item's benefit vs danger to our society as a reasonable way of deciding it's legality to be available. Sure......a large bulldozer can be a danger but it's benefit to us is way more than it's danger. Now, apply the same test to a German Tiger tank with operating armament.......In what way is the potential danger it represents balanced by a benefit to our society??