If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Comfortable. Why would that make me uncomfortable? He can buy all of the gasoline he wants, too. I really don't see where you're going with this.
Click to expand...

are you serious? or just being contrary? try this one, if I'm next to you at the range and I keep covering you with my muzzle thats not cool right?
Now, say I'm next door and build a berm on our shared property line so we can fire at home, that might not be that bad assuming we';re both responsible. Lastly say I get into explosives in a big way and my thing is TNT now unlike gasoline where only the vapor is flammable and it's relativley safe(like gunpowder). Now I get lazy, drunk whatever and blow up my house, your house, and our sweet berm. you're ok with that?

I realize i'm using suppositions, but I cant believe you guys don't see how some things are more dangerous then others and the majority of ppl shouldn't handle certain things without training, esp when they can affect the public. that is the goverments job
 
So why do we have a gun control advocate claiming to be pro gun? Duke you runnin for office? Let me guess you hunt too :neener:
 
Titan I know it's an extreme example my point is there has to be a line somewhere or ppl having TNT will be relevant. Where is your line?
 
Titan I know it's an extreme example my point is there has to be a line somewhere or ppl having TNT will be relevant. Where is your line?
Click to expand...

I know it's not directed to me, however, people have very loose access to very potent explosives in the form of gasoline, propane, ANFO, etc.. yet these people are not blowing themselves up. Do you really think easy access to trinitrotoluene would make them more prone to blowing themselves (or their neighbors) to smithereens?



edited to add: Some people are hopelessly dumb. It's not the government's job to safeguard them from themselves. And it's YOUR responsibility to safeguard you and your family from them.
 
So, infighting, personal attacks and bitching at each other for eight pages over a controversial subject does exactly what to advance the mission of THR?

I have to say, this one's lost on me.

Seems like we just went through similar infighting with the "mandatory CCW test" threads.
 
Titan I know it's an extreme example my point is there has to be a line somewhere or ppl having TNT will be relevant. Where is your line?
Click to expand...

It is an Apples and Oranges example and not really a valid one. By your thinking half the country would have blown itself up prior to 1967. But that isn't what happened. My grandfather had a crate of the stuff in his shed and he didn't kill a soul (outside of WWI that is) or blow anyone up. We fear what we don't understand.
 
try this one, if I'm next to you at the range and I keep covering you with my muzzle thats not cool right?
Click to expand...
That would be doing something unsafe. And it's also unrelated. Owning a gun and being an idiot does not automatically equal breaking the 4 rules of gun safety.

Now, say I'm next door and build a berm on our shared property line so we can fire at home, that might not be that bad assuming we';re both responsible.
Click to expand...

That's unrelated. I have no idea what your point is with this example.

Lastly say I get into explosives in a big way and my thing is TNT now unlike gasoline where only the vapor is flammable and it's relativley safe(like gunpowder).
Click to expand...
OK. Enjoy the explosives world.

Now I get lazy, drunk whatever and blow up my house, your house, and our sweet berm. you're ok with that?
Click to expand...
No because that would be criminal negligence. You would be punished for it. Why should you and I and everyone we know be punished because you are an idiot that might blow everything up. What is stopping you from doing the same with your gasoline? And I thought you said you were responsible. Why does owning TNT all of a sudden change you to being irresponsible?

And where is this assuption coming from that you + owning TNT = a negligent explosion? That is where we have a huge difference of opinion. I don't agree with banning all of us from owning something because you could hurt somebody. I believe in punishing you if you do hurt somebody. You don't understand this concept, so there is no point in arguing with you, and on that note...
 
So, infighting, personal attacks and bitching at each other for eight pages over a controversial subject does exactly what to advance the mission of THR?
Click to expand...

It is not infighting when different sides are represented, even if they don't represent themselves honestly. The personal attacks we could do without but if wants to call himself a turd so-be-it. It is much better to have it out than to expect for someone to have your back and find a knife in their hand instead. Certainly debate about firearms rights and laws is a big part of the mission of THR. Much better than the preaching to the choir that normally goes on.... Amen brother!
 
expvideo said:
In many places communists are criminals just for being communists. Like DoD said, it's not like being Republican or Democrat. The Communist Party is not simply a political party, but a subversive organization. Kind of how the Israelis view Hamas. It's not just a political party.
Click to expand...

How many acts of terrorism has the US communist party committed?
 
How many acts of terrorism has the US communist party committed?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. I didn't say they were a terrorist organization. I said that the Communist Party is considered a SUBVERSIVE organization in WA state, and being a member of the Communist Party is therefor a felony. I didn't make the law, so I'm not defending it. I'm just telling you what the law says.

RCW 9.81.030
Membership in subversive organization is felony — Penalty.

It is a class C felony for any person after June 1, 1951, to become, or after September 1, 1951, to remain a member of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization knowing the organization to be a subversive organization or foreign subversive organization. Any person upon a plea of guilty or upon conviction of violating this section shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, at the discretion of the court.
Click to expand...

RCW 9.81.083
Communist party declared a subversive organization.

The Communist party is a subversive organization within the purview of chapter 9.81 RCW and membership in the Communist party is a subversive activity thereunder.
Click to expand...
 
How many acts of terrorism has the US communist party committed?
Click to expand...

Umm lots....

Throughout its history, one of RCP's principal objectives has been to foment civil unrest in the United States. The most notable example of such efforts occurred on April 29, 1992, when RCP members looted and trashed the downtown and government districts of Los Angeles, triggering the infamous Rodney King riots. During the days immediately preceding the violence, RCP -- which maintained close ties to the L.A. gangs known as the Crips and the Bloods -- had circulated throughout South Central Los Angeles a leaflet featuring a statement by RCP National Spokesman Carl Dix, titled "It's Right To Rebel" -- a quote popularized by Mao Zedong. Encouraged by Dix, RCP activists helped lead the riots that would leave 58 people dead, more than 2,300 people injured, some 5,300 buildings burned, and $1 billion in property damaged or destroyed. On the ten-year anniversary of the rioting, RCP member Joseph Veale fondly recalled the violence as "the most beautiful, the most heroic civil action in the history of the United States."
Click to expand...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6197

They are more organizers of violence. But don't mind participating.
 
I said that the Communist Party is considered a SUBVERSIVE organization in WA state, and being a member of the Communist Party is therefor a felony.
Click to expand...

Never heard of anything like that. Citations?

Titan6, can you provide link for that? Just one example of a group participating in the LA riots?
 
My point is that no restrictions means no restrictions and eventually you have to draw a line. I believe that you need competance to do certain things
I use examples to try show things in a different light. Take out explosives, put in artillery, ebola, whatever. So do you guys have a line or should we have grocery stores selling napalm. Why have regulations at all? You guys care if the gov makes sure dr are licensed/ or should we wait till they make a mistake?
 
gasoline has that expolsive power under pressure, not in normal containers. If you want to get into a scientific peeing contest we can I love science :) but i thought this thread was about law. I'll ask my ques. again do you have a line? if so what is it?
 
Last edited:
gasoline has that expolsive [explosive?] power under pressure, not in normal containers
Click to expand...

Strangely that is true of ammuntion... I mean ammunition. (but not true of gasoline. Gasoline relies on a fuel/ air mixture such as when it goes through a computer controlled fuel injector. You could go to the store and buy a garden weed sprayer to accomplish some amazingly explosive things with a gallon of gas.)

Which bringing it back on topic means that we should have a special license for ammunition, gasoline and TNT?
 
We all know that gasoline is highly flammable and easily ignited. In fact, a single cup of gasoline has the explosive power of five sticks of dynamite. Because gasoline is so easily ignited, you must use great care in handling it.
Click to expand...

Gasoline is very flammable, and very dangerous.
A cup of it, however, is not "five sticks" of dynamite.
The comparison is a total fallacy and a little research into this field will reveal that they are no where near the other's order.

This irks me the same as "small nuclear bomb" and gun forums going way off topic and talking about such unrelated topics as explosives AND POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION.

but here I am doing it. guilty.
 
Now wait a second the feds are saying the same thing, almost. Now it is five pounds of TNT! We all know the federal government wouldn't lie to us don't we?

http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000701-d000800/d000760/d000760.html

When mixed with air in the right proportions, the vapor of one cup of gasoline has the explosive power of about five pounds of dynamite, enough destructive force to destroy any house or car.
Click to expand...

(This is actually a bit more as one stick weighs about .62 pounds.)
 
Gasoline relies on a fuel/ air mixture such as when it goes through a computer controlled fuel injector. You could go to the store and
Click to expand...
,
exactly so a cup, is 8oz so say less than an oz is going through the fuel injector. you think that your car has the eq of 1/2 stick of TNT going off constantly?

I dont think there should be a lisence for ammo, but expolosives, hand grenades, Machine guns( belt fed type, not M16/uzi), artillery, nukes, etc. not all with the same rq of course, for example if you want a machine gun or hand grenade you just get a bkgrd check and it enters a registery. This would be free and all it says is so and so owns one and you wouldn't be able to sell FTF, for other stuff, you'd have to meet other req.

you gonna ever answer my ques Titan? I look forward to your answer as I agree with a lot of your posts on other threads
 
exactly so a cup, is 8oz so say less than an oz is going through the fuel injector. you think that your car has the eq of 1/2 stick of TNT going off constantly?
Click to expand...
The flaw in your logic here is that gasoline in an engine doesnt explode, rather it is a controlled burn.


Jim
 
qwert65 said:
I dont think there should be a lisence for ammo, but expolosives, hand grenades, Machine guns( belt fed type, not M16/uzi), artillery, nukes, etc. not all with the same rq of course, for example if you want a machine gun or hand grenade you just get a bkgrd check and it enters a registery. This would be free and all it says is so and so owns one and you wouldn't be able to sell FTF, for other stuff, you'd have to meet other req.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm misreading the above but it seems you are advocating licensing as a requirement for firearms ownership? If so, I'm guessing you view these as reasonable restrictions and common-sense compromises?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Muzzleflash
M
T
  • Locked
What Impact Would Greater Numbers Of CHPs Have?
2
Replies
25
Views
747
230RN
230RN
H
  • Locked
Were you ever anti-gun?
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
7K
hdwhit
H
H
  • Locked
For those new to guns, here's the mindset you will find against you
Replies
6
Views
444
powell&hyde
P
R
  • Locked
How law-abiding are you?
Replies
7
Views
579
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top