yubba thread with some serious discussion? :o

Unbelievable! :nope:

Like Andrea. :shifty:


Meh, could have fooled me. Sons have been killed for much less, after all. Every decent ruler knows that having a harelip is a perfectly valid reason for throwing your 2-year old infant heir out of the castle's window.

It the CK2 doomsday conspiracy as the Y2K conspiracy is sooooo last millenium

A very good opinion peace about how Conservatives are up to fighting tooth and claws when it comes to the 2nd Amendment while keeping an awkward silence when it comes to other rights: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...olution/266711

I recommend to read the full article, though here are 2 quotes for the lazy ones:

Fair enough on point 2, but in 1792 no-one complained about the registration and inspection of weapons. Why now?:D

That used to be traditional ethics of military service. Sadly the modern military members don't always recognize it. :(

Has anyone read what Diane is proposing?

I would say the chances if that, as written, even getting out of committee are approximately slim with a chance of it being approved very close to zero. :nope:

That is a very important point that some tend to forget.

Love the sword, die by the sword.

That is not just true for individuals, but also for societies and cultures. You reap what you sow.

Because they were being ordered to own weapons, and they thought that was a good idea. Now the idea is to take the weapons away, and we think that's a bad idea. As for registration, that is a conundrum. If the point is to know who the government can rely on in a call-up, registration seems like a good idea to the gun owner. When the point is to know whose door to knock on when the government wants to collect guns, registration seems like a bad idea.

I've know people who refused to join the NRA on the principle that if any State or Federal agency did decide to start confiscating guns, they would likely start by finding a judge who would demand the NRA hand over the rolls.

I read it. It's more draconian than even the regulations on their full auto counterparts.

Good point, that.

I might make it my signature on another forum!

If they were ordered then they were regulated and registered, after all if the people are ordered to keep a longarm with 50m bullets and a horn of powder and fowling pieces don't count then they are touiching all the bases for the 2nd allowing strict regulation on that which it covers.

The idea is to restrict ownership of some weapons isn't it, plus take them away from people you all seem to agree shouldn't be allowed weapons.

Yet the same people who say it is a bad idea are unable to defend it when the government has failed to remove guns from people they agree shouldn't have guns.

I was merely answering TarJak's question of why gun owners wouldn't complain then but would complain now. Your attempts to drag me into another point-by-point fail.

Consider the Following.
 

Since this looks like another thread about gun rights and gun control, I'll just leave these here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

Now since all of these are from Wiki there probably not 100% accurite and leave out some detail, like the Finland article doesn't explain how many or what type of Traffic Offences and/or how many would disallow a person from getting a firearms certificate .