Gun Bans

[Sociobiology]

because they never demonstrated it was classist.

Restricting inexpensive guns simply becase they are inexpensive is by it's very nature, classist.

no doing it to keep them out of the hands of the poor would be classist, doing to prevent criminals from having access to disposable guns would not be classist.

Also is not letting me have a helicopter classist just because I cannot afford to buy a helicopter?

Economic Class

Because the price of a firearm can determine who is able to buy it, the elimination of inexpensive firearms could have a direct effect upon those of lesser means. Roy Innis, president of the activist group Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), said "To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." (CORE filed as an amicus curiae in a 1985 suit challenging Maryland's Saturday night special/low-caliber handgun ban.[4]) The Wright and Rossi evaluation of the National Institute of Justice study (p. 238) concluded: "The people most likely to be deterred from acquiring a handgun by exceptionally high prices or by the nonavailability of certain kinds of handguns are not felons intent on arming themselves for criminal purposes (who can, if all else fails, steal the handgun they want), but rather poor people who have decided they need a gun to protect themselves against the felons but who find that the cheapest gun in the market costs more than they can afford to pay."[4

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

Yes it is wiki, but it is a well sourced article.

[/quote]
what does Maryland's Saturday night special/low-caliber handgun ban have to do with the federal The Gun Control Act of 1968?

[Big Jim P]

I finally got around to providing you a source.

He just had his panties in a bunch because I answered the question he asked, rather than the question that he apparently wanted to ask.

Typical.

[Republica Newland]

You're deplorable at this. Please stop trying. Military use of chemical weapons is very illegal by a number of international conventions. Whatever your sources are,they're shit.

Tear gas is not covered by the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

CS gas is tear gas and more than allowed, but go on keep advertising your ignorance.

Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997. The reasoning behind the prohibition is pragmatic: use of CS by one combatant could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic chemical weapons such as nerve agents. Only five nations have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and are therefore unhindered by restrictions on the use of CS gas: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria.

Legend:



So you want to keep on making a fool of yourself?

Go ahead.

[Big Jim P]

Restricting inexpensive guns simply becase they are inexpensive is by it's very nature, classist.

no doing it to keep them out of the hands of the poor would be classist, doing to prevent criminals from having access to disposable guns would not be classist.

Also is not letting me have a helicopter classist just because I cannot afford to buy a helicopter?

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

Yes it is wiki, but it is a well sourced article.

what does Maryland's Saturday night special/low-caliber handgun ban have to do with the federal The Gun Control Act of 1968?[/quote]

Read the entire article. The part I quoted was merely to support my statement that restricting low cost guns is classist.

Oh, and BTW: You do not need a helicopter for self defense. Please quit trying to obscure the topic. I know it is the preferred tactic of the gun-control lobby, but it makes you all look just as bad as the gun nuts make us supporters look bad.

[Republica Newland]

then why would their banning be racist and classist as Jim claimed?

I finally got around to providing you a source.

Just ignore the man,his claims simply keep on cascading one over another into an endless pit of dumb and fail.

[Dyakovo]

Tear gas is not covered by the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

I already redacted my statement because I discovered I was mistaken...

[Big Jim P]

Ah ok. You mean like demoman's gun from tf2

No.

I still so want to fire one of these. Sadly, I am too old to re-enlist.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Tear gas is not covered by the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

Legend:



So you want to keep on making a fool of yourself?

Go ahead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Pete#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations

There's some debate as to what constitutes a violation of those protocols.

[Republica Newland]

I already redacted my statement because I discovered I was mistaken...

My bad.

[Sociobiology]

no doing it to keep them out of the hands of the poor would be classist, doing to prevent criminals from having access to disposable guns would not be classist.

Also is not letting me have a helicopter classist just because I cannot afford to buy a helicopter?

what does Maryland's Saturday night special/low-caliber handgun ban have to do with the federal The Gun Control Act of 1968?

Read the entire article. The part I quoted was merely to support my statement that restricting low cost guns is classist.

unless you believe that low cost is facilitating their use in crime.
the disposable gun argument was a valid non-classist argument even when it turned to be incorrect.

Oh, and BTW: You do not need a helicopter for self defense.

You don't need a gun for self-defense either.

Please quit trying to obscure the topic. I know it is the preferred tactic of the gun-control lobby, but it makes you all look just as bad as the gun nuts make us supporters look bad.

you might want to look back and see my position on guns before your decide what I am. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=13038847#p13038847

[Paddy O Fernature]

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

[Dyakovo]

No.

I still so want to fire one of these. Sadly, I am too old to re-enlist.

Aye... It's a bloody shame that I can't have one... Just to blow shit up in my backyard*... Hell, even if I could only get the dummy rounds I'd be a happy camper...

*okay, not my actual backyard, it's far to small for that, but you get the idea...

[Sociobiology]

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

get it through your head, no one is taking the strawman bait.

[Republica Newland]

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

You make a good point but try to rephrase your post every time you put it up again or otherwise these lovely fellas over here will not hesitate to whine and snitch about "spamming". In all fairness,they have repeatedly avoided your post.

[Republica Newland]

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

get it through your head, no one is taking the strawman bait.

This is no strawman.

[Big Jim P]

I still so want to fire one of these. Sadly, I am too old to re-enlist.

Aye... It's a bloody shame that I can't have one... Just to blow shit up in my backyard*... Hell, even if I could only get the dummy rounds I'd be a happy camper...

*okay, not my actual backyard, it's far to small for that, but you get the idea...

Ja. Show up at the next meeting of the machine gun owners (do they even still have these?) and punk everyone except the people with the miningun or the quad mounted .50 cals.

[Paddy O Fernature]

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

get it through your head, no one is taking the strawman bait.

How is it a strawman?

This is a thread about gun bans. The top carbine is on the chopping block, the bottom one is not. Id like to try to understand why the anti gun types are afraid of the top one, but not the bottom one.

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

You make a good point but try to rephrase your post every time you put it up again or otherwise these lovely fellas over here will not hesitate to whine and snitch about "spamming". In all fairness,they have repeatedly avoided your post.

Noted.

[Sociobiology]

get it through your head, no one is taking the strawman bait.

This is no strawman.

yes it is.
the results of multiple gun control laws some of which pass and some of which fail, all of which end up heavily modified, does not accurately represent the position of gin control advocates.

[The Emerald Dawn]

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

You make a good point but try to rephrase your post every time you put it up again or otherwise these lovely fellas over here will not hesitate to whine and snitch about "spamming". In all fairness,they have repeatedly avoided your post.

Because going to moderation for problems is "whining" and "snitching" now?

[Big Jim P]

For the 5th time:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=221296&p=13026429#p13026429

get it through your head, no one is taking the strawman bait.

It is not a strawman, seeing as many guns on the ban list (and the original AWB) ore (were) there for merely cosmetic reasons. Answer the question.

[Paddy O Fernature]

You make a good point but try to rephrase your post every time you put it up again or otherwise these lovely fellas over here will not hesitate to whine and snitch about "spamming". In all fairness,they have repeatedly avoided your post.

Because going to moderation for problems is "whining" and "snitching" now?

So actually staying on topic is a problem now?

Oh my....

[Republica Newland]

Restricting inexpensive guns simply becase they are inexpensive is by it's very nature, classist.

no doing it to keep them out of the hands of the poor would be classist, doing to prevent criminals from having access to disposable guns would not be classist.

Also is not letting me have a helicopter classist just because I cannot afford to buy a helicopter?

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

Yes it is wiki, but it is a well sourced article.

Facepalm

So again you're the one talking about topic diversion,the strawman,going off-topic and non sequitur when you're proven to be the actual author of all of those.

No one is not letting you own a helicopter. "Also is not letting me have a helicopter classist just because I cannot afford to buy a helicopter?" Banning cheap helicopters would be classist,yes. Is this really that hard to grasp?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because going to moderation for problems is "whining" and "snitching" now?

So actually staying on topic is a problem now?

Oh my....

Because that's exactly what I meant.

[Republica Newland]

You make a good point but try to rephrase your post every time you put it up again or otherwise these lovely fellas over here will not hesitate to whine and snitch about "spamming". In all fairness,they have repeatedly avoided your post.

Because going to moderation for problems is "whining" and "snitching" now?

I think I'll stop calling it that when some gun control guy will answer his question.

[Dyakovo]

This is no strawman.

yes it is.
the results of multiple gun control laws some of which pass and some of which fail, all of which end up heavily modified, does not accurately represent the position of gin control advocates.

So you're claiming Dianne Feinstein was drunk when she drew up her proposal?
Seriously though... While it isn't the position of all gun control advocates, it certainly is of some.