quote Originally posted by User00013170: They watched weaponry advance even in their life time and knew how it advanced over the ages. They had cannons and explosives. They knew about poisons. Swords, knives, etc. They knew it would only get more deadly as that is how mankind works. They were not idiots and knew exactly what they were doing.

Yup just like the government of today knows exactly what they're doing. Sorry I'm not buying it. Like it's been said before, if it was perfect, and they knew what they were doing so well, it wouldn't have had to be amended.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 01-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Yup just like the government of today knows exactly what they're doing. Sorry I'm not buying it. Like it's been said before, if it was perfect, and they knew what they were doing so well, it wouldn't have had to be amended.

I have clearly stated in the past that the founders were not perfect and even listed the main mistakes i felt they made, and i have NEVER said today's federal government has a clue ( well, other than how to take our money ). Also, there is zero comparison to the perverted mess we have now and what our founders intended. It is not the same, and hasn't been for a long long time.

The bill of rights would have been folded into the main body, but there was too much politics going on. Even then they had to deal with the realties of the posturing of political figures.

What most of those promoting some "reasonable" gun control, and asking us to compromise, seem to be missing, is...
1. Compromise is give/get, all gun control has been gun owners give, and the bar is moved every time o a new "compromise" point.
2. This is a natural right, trying to take it is promoting tyranny. If you support gun control you are advocating tyranny.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: I am going to use my country as an example.

I just got this in an e-mail. Entitled "Gun Control In Australia - Watch And Weep".

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-25-2013).]

LOL Cliff, I expected better from you. That is such an old one sided piece of propaganda it is laughable. Particularly the made up statistics etc. At least post credible vidoes. Not something you got in an email with an agenda. Those people do not represent the bulk of the community and the stats, wow. So far wrong it is hillarious.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Just to throw another variable into this discussion. Could the USA government legally restrict the sale of ammunition and materials to make ammunition? Is ammunition classified as arms as apposed to muntions? Just wondering where the line is drawn on those definitions. In fact is there a line legally drawn?

I would think that would end up being decided in court. As with a "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" one could argue limiting ammunition availability could be infringement as that impacts the ability to use the arms. That's kind of like making gas $20.00 a gallon to cut back on pollution. While we don't have a right to drive cars that shall not be infringed, the increased cost of fuel would directly effect the ability to use the automobile. I guess a better example would be a fee for every word transmitted by electronic media. Does that violate free speech and press? How about limiting the availability of paper and writing utensils along with making it cost prohibitive to make your own? Would that violate free speech and press? Want to go to the town hall meeting and exercise your free speech on a topic? That's fine, but you need to pay $500 at the door to get your turn at the podium.

You have added an interesting scenario there Khw (oops edited to have the letters in the right order). Even if they couldn't ban ammunition they could possibly tax the ass out of it.

[This message has been edited by AusFiero (edited 01-26-2013).]

Oh, of course they could tax the heck out of it. Look at cigarettes. The state could prupose a law to add a $3.00 per box tax to raise money for schools and they could probably get the public to sign of on it. If they can demonize gun owners as much as they have smokers it'd be easy, and I fear they are getting real close to success if they haven't gotten there already. Then in a couple of years, when that money isn't making it's way to the schools like they "said" it would, they will ask the public to increase those taxes another $1.25 a box. Rinse, repeat.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 01-26-2013).]

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: LOL Cliff, I expected better from you. That is such an old one sided piece of propaganda it is laughable. Particularly the made up statistics etc. At least post credible vidoes. Not something you got in an email with an agenda. Those people do not represent the bulk of the community and the stats, wow. So far wrong it is hillarious.

Sorry to disappoint you Aus. I did not get it in an e-mail with an agenda. I got it in an e-mail from my Dad, ... who, days before, at my house, supported some type of gun reform. We had discussed it. I thought it fit your thread.
Copy of the e-mail :

quote I just don’t know how I stand on gun control, for sure I don’t think the government will protect us, but yet I don’t think we need 100 round clips either. The old thinking that we might have to defend ourselves against the government is outdated. We just have guns, they have A bombs, rockets, tanks, machine guns, flame throwers etc and armed forces willing to die for any unjustified pissey ant reason the deem necessary. I just got rid of about 20 guns myself. I think the 5 I kept will keep me safe from any home invasion, carjack, robbery or assault upon me or mine. If you need a 100 round clip to bring down a deer, you need to find another sport. On the other hand, if the Government takes guns away from the law abiding citizens, for sure the bad guys will STILL have them. I’m open for answers to a solution.

I admit that I did not watch all of the video, I was busy. I also did not contemplate that it might be bullzhit as my Dad and I will not bullzhit each other.
What are credible statistics, what makes these made up ? I also wonder why you think the people do not represent the bulk of the citizens.
Since you recognize it, as propaganda, who put it out ? I usually consider the source. I guess I need to tell my Dad to reconsider his reaction to the video.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Could the USA government legally restrict the sale of ammunition and materials to make ammunition?

Good question Aus,

From what I've seen in the pyrotechnics industry, I'd say yes. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, has used the full weight of their federal government agency to virtually shut down all suppliers of pyrotechnic building supplies for the hobbyist's through tyranical use of law suits, bullying and intimidation. The CPSC is an unelected agency hellbent with it's own aganda accountable to themselves and congress.

I would say yes, the CPSC could be sent after the materials without congress enacting any vote costing laws, thus giving congress a free pass on the issue like they have with the hobby pyrotechnic suppliers. It's a sneaky, cunning, back door play thats viable, they've got the proven playbook in their hands.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I admit that I did not watch all of the video, I was busy. I also did not contemplate that it might be bullzhit as my Dad and I will not bullzhit each other. What are credible statistics, what makes these made up ? I also wonder why you think the people do not represent the bulk of the citizens. Since you recognize it, as propaganda, who put it out ? I usually consider the source. I guess I need to tell my Dad to reconsider his reaction to the video.

Things are much different here than those few people try to make it out to be Cliff, and after the gun buy back gun related crime did drop drastically. Not rose like their statistics tried to make out. Don't know who put it out but it is very old footage and edited to tell a huge whopper basically.