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

[FoMoGo]

No FTF?
Yea... no thanks...


Jim

 

[Titan6]

you think that your car has the eq of 1/2 stick of TNT going off constantly?

Your math is a little off but yes. Keep in mind that a cup of gasoline is powering an engine that has enough energy to propel a 3000 pound automobile up the side of steep hill at 90 MPH for several miles.

I am not going to answer any more gasoline related questions as they are off topic. If you want to know more about gas either eat some beans and drink some beer or do some other research on your own.

 

[qwert65]

fair enough, but I'd argue that if I had gas in a can and lit it it would not be as damaging as a can of tnt

 

[qwert65]

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

you are misreading. all firearms except belt fed weapons are treated as books, or bread or whatever this includes full auto magazine fed weapons

 

[RevNate]

I did not read all of these pages, but I have come to a frightful conclusion... Our lawmakers really ARE representing their constituencies! No wonder our rights keep getting infringed upon. Ol' Ben said it something like this: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Gun laws? Being that a gun is a tool and nothing more, I believe they should be regulated on the same level as staple guns, grease guns, and caulking guns. I once saw a guy shoot another guy with a staple gun. Apparently the perp had bought his weapon under the table at one of those tool shows. AND it had an integral magazine which was capable of holding 50 rounds of staples!

The Second Ammendment explicitly states that our RIGHT to keep AND bear arms can not be messed with. That is all the gun law we need- limit the power of the government, not the right of the citizen.

 

[SuperNaut]

you are misreading.

Ah, okay.

Thanks for that.

 

[expvideo]

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.

Never heard of anything like that. Citations?

Check my post. The citations are there. I'll post them again...

edit to add:

Here they are:

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.

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.

They are not a terrorist organization. A terrorist organization uses terror to forward an agenda. They are a subversive organization. There is a difference, but it is a crime to be a member of either. A subversive organization, as defined in RCW 9.81.010, is an organization that "engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or advocate, abet, advise, or teach activities intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States"

Important parts of the definition bolded

 

[CoRoMo]

Gasoline...
Communist party...

I'll have to go back a few pages to know what the original topic is actually about.

 

[rainbowbob]

I'll have to go back a few pages to know what the original topic is actually about.

Too late! I'm amazed this thing is still going...

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Okay, I'm back from my quickie.

The "turd" comment was not directed at anyone in particular.

The comments re: TNT and gasoline are right on point. As qwert put it, "no" restrictions MEANS "no" restrictions. If you really mean no restrictions at all, then YES that means I can aim my WWI howitzer directly at your bedroom window, load it up, and flip you off as you dial 911 -- because it's legal. It also means I can park that tanker truck of hydrogen peroxide in front of your house, unlock the valves and light up a cigar. Neither is criminal, and since "regulations" aren't "law" in somebody's little world, I can do it -- in their world. You'd have to wait -- until the truck explodes, or until I get rip-roaring drunk and pull the howitzer lanyard, blowing your house to matchwood and going to -- oh, not jail; as it's not illegal. You'd have to sue me civilly -- except that I already have the bankruptcy papers ready to file. So sorry.

I don't happen to find that sort of world suitable for civilized habitation.

 

[wjustinen]

None.

There are appropriate laws about all the things you can do with firearms that are wrong.

It is nonsense to believe that laws about who can or can't have a firearm, or about what kind of firearm one can have are of any value in a free society.

 

[BrandonBowers]

If you really mean no restrictions at all, then YES that means I can aim my WWI howitzer directly at your bedroom window, load it up, and flip you off as you dial 911 -- because it's legal.

Don't know what state you live in but here in Texas you could get shot pointing a weapon at someone else as that is a deadly threat.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

wjustinen, would you be happy to learn that your suicidally depressed radical mohammedean next door neighbor, who just finished doing 14 years for murdering a young family of four in order to steal their XBox, owns 500 pounds of high explosives and a full-auto submachinegun, and likes to point it at your house and your children while overdosing on his medications? Too bad -- none means none.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Brandon, it isn't pointed at you -- it's pointed at your house. Until the kid down the street wanders by and pulls the lanyard. HAH-hah.

Incidentally, it IS legal, currently, to point a deactivated WWI 75mm howitzer at your neighbor's house, at least around here. Trust me.

 

[shotgunjoel]

Guys the point of this post is what laws would you honestly want if there was no concern over the slippery slope and antis taking our rights.

 

[expvideo]

The comments re: TNT and gasoline are right on point. As qwert put it, "no" restrictions MEANS "no" restrictions. If you really mean no restrictions at all, then YES that means I can aim my WWI howitzer directly at your bedroom window, load it up, and flip you off as you dial 911 -- because it's legal. It also means I can park that tanker truck of hydrogen peroxide in front of your house, unlock the valves and light up a cigar. Neither is criminal, and since "regulations" aren't "law" in somebody's little world, I can do it -- in their world. You'd have to wait -- until the truck explodes, or until I get rip-roaring drunk and pull the howitzer lanyard, blowing your house to matchwood and going to -- oh, not jail; as it's not illegal. You'd have to sue me civilly -- except that I already have the bankruptcy papers ready to file. So sorry.

Come on! You're a lawyer; you know better than that. Pointing a howitzer at someone, or any other gun for that matter, is a crime. You are threatening deadly force. That is not a gun law that you are breaking, it is an assault. You could get rid of every GUN law out there, and it would still be illegal to threaten to kill people.

You could get rid of every explosives law out there, and it would still be illegal to kill people with explosives. That is because murder, assault, attempted murder, negligent homicide, and all of those other wonderful crimes are NOT gun laws or gun restrictions. You know that, and you know that this arguement is bullsh**. I really had a higher opinion of you, but you are really stooping to a low level, since we both know that you are well aware of the fact that killing and threatening to kill are not protected by the second amendment, and doing so is a crime, regardless of gun restrictions.

It's ironic that one of your next posts in another thread said:

...it's not every day that they change the definition of murder or arson or burglary or racketeering.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Pointing a howitzer at your house is not assaulting you.

It might well be assault if you opened your bedroom window so that I could see you personally, and I then traversed the gun onto your person, if and only if you reasonably feared that I could and would fire the thing at you.

 

[expvideo]

Then what is it? Please tell me how it is a gun regulation that would be broken, and not a violent felony.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that's assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Justin]

wjustinen, would you be happy to learn that your suicidally depressed radical mohammedean next door neighbor, who just finished doing 14 years for murdering a young family of four in order to steal their XBox, owns 500 pounds of high explosives and a full-auto submachinegun, and likes to point it at your house and your children while overdosing on his medications? Too bad -- none means none.

Seems to me that just because someone says that there should be no restrictions on ownership of weaponry, that doesn't mean they are also calling for repeal of laws against assault.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

If howitzers and shells are not controlled, then it is not a crime to point it at your house. As I stated earlier, it is not a crime to mount a deactivated howitzer in your yard, pointed at a neighbors house. Rude, maybe. Funny, yes. Illegal? No.

The crime of assault involves specific elements, all of which must be present in order for a crime to be committed. How these elements are stated, and some of their specifics, vary from state to state. Pointing a gun, or a howitzer, at a building, is not common law assault.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Justin: "Seems to me that just because someone says that there should be no restrictions on ownership of weaponry, that doesn't mean they are also calling for repeal of laws against assault."

The depressed mohammedean is not assaulting you by pointing his submachinegun at your house. He very well may be committing assault if he points it at your children -- but that crime likely would be impossible of proof. You could call the cops ten times, and it would be the same thing -- he'd deny pointing the gun at your kid.

 

[Justin]

It is my understanding that in most places one does not actually have to commit an act of violence in order to be guilty of assault. Merely creating a situation in which the victim perceives that such is imminent is enough to suffice.

So, pulling a knife on you and threatening to stab you is a crime. As is pulling a gun, or pointing a howitzer for that matter.

If what I have described is not commonly considered to be assault in jurisdictions in the United States, I'm certainly open to being educated as to what the proper term is for laws that actually do cover such situations where a reasonable person would perceive that they are being threatened.

 

[expvideo]

If howitzers and shells are not controlled, then it is not a crime to point it at your house. As I stated earlier, it is not a crime to mount a deactivated howitzer in your yard, pointed at a neighbors house. Rude, maybe. Funny, yes. Illegal? No.

The crime of assault involves specific elements, all of which must be present in order for a crime to be committed. How these elements are stated, and some of their specifics, vary from state to state. Pointing a gun, or a howitzer, at a building, is not common law assault.

I was right. Public defenders are idiots.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Justin: "So, pulling a knife on you and threatening to stab you is a crime. As is pulling a gun, or pointing a howitzer for that matter."

Yes. But pulling a knife on your house is not. Nor a gun, nor a howitzer.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

expvideo: "I was right. Public defenders are idiots."

Perhaps, kiddo ... but in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is God.