What did we see in Katrina? We saw the people with weapons keep people from crossing bridges and shooting people walking down the street. Roving bands of armed opportunists, indeed.
Where in the world did you get that from? If it allows you to theoretically own drones why wouldn’t it allow you to own nuclear weapons?
Police officers right? I assume that is who you are referring to.
I really think the crowd that wants to ban all guns are a fringe set. Popular opinion will never allow it and the 2nd Amendment appears exceedingly unlikely to be repealed. You could ban assault weapons, large clips and enforce stricter rules around gun sales, but at that point hopefully people will have the wisdom to notice that society has to do a better job taking care of its crazy people, or prevent so many from going crazy in the first place because of hopeless poverty or… I dunno, why the hell do we have so many crazies?
Anyway, the slippery slope bit is just talk. Guns aren’t going away, please relax. People who are worried about oppression by a tyrannical government ought to focus on protecting education funding and defending the EPA, raising taxes on the wealthy to more reasonable, historic levels while drastically cutting military spending so we can act like we are a nation and invest our resources in our own people’s well being.
Non-officers, too.
Wow, sounds like a bunch of crazies with guns to me.
The Constitution establishes the broad principle that the federal government alone is supposed to handle foreign relations and especially that the federal government alone is to determine whether or not the country is to conduct armed hostilities with a foreign power. Spelled out in multiple provisions of Article One, including Article One Section Ten Clause Three, which bans the states from having their own “troops” and “ships of war”. If, as seems likely, the purpose of that provision is to reserve to the federal government a monopoly on the power to wage foreign war then the states- and presumably private citizens as well- can be forbidden to possess strategic weapons systems designed to project military power against a foreign nation. At a minimum it could be argued that bombers and missiles are the modern equivalent of “ships of war”, and that weapons of mass destruction would count as well.
Or they are using it to protect themselves against a raping/murdering/housebreaking-in monster man
Makes as much sense as semi-automatic weapons for domestic defense
Indeed. Why go down the painfully slow road of reason and persuasion when the Panthers could shoot it out with the Klan? And make J. Edgar Hoover’s fondest dreams come true? Vigorous political discourse, there’s the ticket!
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are simply pretending, playing a malicious game of stick your thumb in the lefty’s eye. Otherwise, I must think my 'puter has been soiled by the spoor of a knuckle walking idiot. Don’t pretend to be a worse person than you really are, its a very, very bad habit.
They’ve already gone away. Being able to import “forbidden” guns- banned. Being able to buy a new full-auto weapon in accordance with the government’s own regulations- banned. Being able to have a gun shipped directly to you across state lines- banned. Now, because confiscation wouldn’t be practically possible, they want broad classes of weapons on a BATFE database so that they can [del]ban[/del] “regulate” them. :rolleyes:
As I understand your slippery slope point, any further (or apparently already existing) steps to regulate guns/gun ownership is just one slip away from the position of a total gun ban/confiscation. Do I have that part right?
If so, I just don’t know what you are talking about. Sorry you can’t import truckloads of guns from Albania or Mexico or whatever. Sorry you’re not allowed a fully automatic machine gun. Geez, a database!?! It is harder to buy pseudoephedrine these days than it is to buy a gun.
So I just don’t know what you’re talking about, Lumpy. Do you think there is a real threat of a total gun ban? Or do you think there should be no regulations whatsoever wrt firearms, no matter what kinds?
Any guy who needs to carry a gun to feel safe is a frightened little pussy.
:rolleyes:
No, several slips away. Try reading about the history of gun restriction in the UK; Wikipedia’s article on the history of gun restrictions in the UK is a good start. Every single step was “reasonable”, every single step set the precedent for the next step. The “pecked to death by ducks” method of gun abolition.
Yes, in the UK (see above) the mandatory database was used to enable the final ban on handguns. Such a database is virtually a prerequisite to a gun ban.
I agree that no regulations at all sounds absurd; but once you establish that restricting or banning guns is within the legitimate purview of government, where does it end? As I said elsewhere, the binary yes/no question is “should the people be forbidden to possess a class of weapons reserved to the government?” If the answer is “yes”, then the Founder’s notion of an armed populace gets tossed in the rubbish bin. Or as I said in a different post “Restriction includes the number zero”. If the government had a strongly limited authority to regulate firearms, that might be ok. But hoping that Congress won’t expand the authority to regulate or ban next year ain’t it.
The following video is admittedly biased- produced by the NRA and quoting the pro-gun minority in the UK- but it gets the point about databases across. As the interviewees say beginning around 9:25 “It will happen to you if you let it.” “Don’t let the thin edge of the wedge in”.
No, the Docta is right. From the streets of South Central LA and the South Side of Chicago to Beverly Hills and the affluent suburbs across this country, any guy who needs to carry a gun to feel safe is a frightened little pussy, afraid of his shadow and the bizarre fantasies he’s conjured while huddling in his bed. His is not reality-based thinking. It is mental illness.
I live in South Central L.A. The 110 is but a few blocks from me.
You live near a freeway? I don’t get it. 
South Central LA. Home of the Crips, the Bloods, NWA, Ricky!!!. Florence and Normandie, Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles:D, etc.
From Wikipedia: I-110 is primarily within the city limits of Los Angeles, running right through South Central Los Angeles…
IOW, South Central has a bad reputation and Docta G lives right in the middle of it. Full disclosure: Everything I know about South Central comes from pop culture so he’ll have to comment on what life there is really like.
King thought so, and as it turned out, he was entirely right. Armed Panthers and urban race riots did nothing but spur whitey backlash.