How did we go 24 pages w/o a gun control debate?

[Gun Manufacturers]

How about if you are more heavily armed then the Vatican Guards...

The real question is, Who shouldnt be more heavily armed than the Vatican Guards? Dont they use swords and spears?

I believe the ceremonial swill guards have pikes. The real ones are packing shit.

EW!

[Farnhamia]

The real question is, Who shouldnt be more heavily armed than the Vatican Guards? Dont they use swords and spears?

I believe the ceremonial swill guards have pikes. The real ones are packing shit.

EW!

Well, the ceremonial ones are guarding swill ...

[Indri]

Depends, I would say the government has no right to take your guns away....

However if your arsenal starts to out step the US military, then there are problems...

Why? The whole point of the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with protecting hunters' right to a single bolt-action rifle or pump shotty, it was meant to protect the people's right to revolt against the government if it ever overstepped it's bounds. That's what the whole "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" thing was about. They knew that you need a formal military or you'll get invaded by every dictator wanting to expand their empire so they made the right to own and use the same weapons carried and used by militia forces a right that the state militia could never take away. Everyone should be able to own a fucking tank if they can afford it and don't use it to rob banks.

[NERVUN]

To Cat-Tribe:
*snip the silly image*

I love it how people just ignore history and torture cause and effect, don't you?

[Gun Manufacturers]

Off topic, but with all the mention of tanks, I've been wondering something: What would a Suburban body on an Abrams chassis be like? If you skeletonized the Abrams chassis, it should be a bit faster than a stock Abrams and have more seating, while having better off road ability than a suburban as well. But what would it ride like?

[Saige Dragon]

Off topic, but with all the mention of tanks, I've been wondering something: What would a Suburban body on an Abrams chassis be like? If you skeletonized the Abrams chassis, it should be a bit faster than a stock Abrams and have more seating, while having better off road ability than a suburban as well. But what would it ride like?

Fun as hell but they ride like shit on anything less than mud or snow.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Off topic, but with all the mention of tanks, I've been wondering something: What would a Suburban body on an Abrams chassis be like? If you skeletonized the Abrams chassis, it should be a bit faster than a stock Abrams and have more seating, while having better off road ability than a suburban as well. But what would it ride like?

Fun as hell but they ride like shit on anything less than mud or snow.

http://image.internetautoguide.com/f/au ... tracks.jpg

That's not what I'm talking about. I mean, rip the turret off the Abrams, and replace it with the Suburban body (bonus points if the Suburban body can rotate on the Abrams chassis like the turret can).

[Saige Dragon]

That's not what I'm talking about. I mean, rip the turret off the Abrams, and replace it with the Suburban body (bonus points if the Suburban body can rotate on the Abrams chassis like the turret can).

I know, that's just the closest thing to what you're getting at that's street legal as far as I know.

[Gun Manufacturers]

That's not what I'm talking about. I mean, rip the turret off the Abrams, and replace it with the Suburban body (bonus points if the Suburban body can rotate on the Abrams chassis like the turret can).

I know, that's just the closest thing to what you're getting at that's street legal as far as I know.

Ah, ok.

[Jahka]

The real question is, Who shouldnt be more heavily armed than the Vatican Guards? Dont they use swords and spears?

I believe the ceremonial swill guards have pikes. The real ones are packing shit.

EW!

You bet. They smell terrible.

[Coringstadt]

Gun Control requires a balance in policy. Both a left-wing Ban Gun policy fails, as then people feel insecure, and are more likely to be killed when a robber brings a gun, which one can get a gun, they can make one, they can steal one from a cop, or a security guard, unless you ban guns from them, which means that cops cant be as effective to enforce the law (this scenario being vindicated in the UK), and crime goes up, and it's clearly against the 2nd Amendment.

You Cant fully loosen tension on guns, that means guns are way too accessible, and the world turns into a game of "Grand Theft Auto IV" where guns are everywhere, and murderers and psychopaths wont be afraid if you have a gun, that doesnt alway work, their psycho's, they like that.

You need to make guns as accessible to hunter's, and people who want to be secure, while concurrently keeping them out of the hands of psychopaths. You definetly need background checks, and gun registration, but that is really it. I am for the moderate approach, to limit the limitation you can place on the sale of weapons.

[Bluth Corporation]

All governments levy taxes in some form or another.

Not necessarily. A government that operates without taxes is perfectly conceivable, and perfectly possible.

[Galloism]

All governments levy taxes in some form or another.

Not necessarily. A government that operates without taxes is perfectly conceivable, and perfectly possible.

Then explain how it would be possible. Also, if there was one example in history at all, it would lend credence to the idea that it's possible.

[Bluth Corporation]

You definetly need background checks, and gun registration, but that is really it.

Not acceptable; when it comes time to revolt the government in power will have much too easy a time tracking everyone down who might pose a threat.

[Bluth Corporation]

So, you're saying that because all governments currently levy taxes, that the only governemnt possible, ever, would have to levy taxes? No situation could ever occur in which a government did not levy taxes? That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Explain, on even a basic level, how a government can operate without taking in any income.

Who's saying it could or should?

[Bluth Corporation]

Then explain how it would be possible.

Lots of ways; what follows is by no means an exhaustive list:
Seizure of assets of convicted criminals
Putting said criminals to work
Government-operated business concerns, provided the government doesn't use its status as such to gain a market position it would otherwise not have.

Remember, too, that the budget for a proper government is nowhere near what the current U.S. government's budget is.

[Galloism]

Then explain how it would be possible.

Lots of ways; what follows is by no means an exhaustive list:

Yay, let's break it down.

Seizure of assets of convicted criminals

What about the families of those convicted criminals? What about wife, children, etc? Shouldn't they have first crack at the loot?

Putting said criminals to work

Slavery, or you planning on paying them?

Government-operated business concerns, provided the government doesn't use its status as such to gain a market position it would otherwise not have.

I don't see how that would even be possible. The government has a tendency to edge out its competitors.

Remember, too, that the budget for a proper government is nowhere near what the current U.S. government's budget is.

Our budget is a little crazy, I know.


So, no historical examples proving that it's ever been done anywhere at any time?

[Secruss]

Then explain how it would be possible.

Lots of ways; what follows is by no means an exhaustive list:
Seizure of assets of convicted criminals
Putting said criminals to work
Government-operated business concerns, provided the government doesn't use its status as such to gain a market position it would otherwise not have.

Remember, too, that the budget for a proper government is nowhere near what the current U.S. government's budget is.

Thank you bail-outs and government handouts.

[Bluth Corporation]

Seizure of assets of convicted criminals

What about the families of those convicted criminals? What about wife, children, etc? Shouldn't they have first crack at the loot?

No, because they didn't own it.

Putting said criminals to work

Slavery, or you planning on paying them?

They gave up their humanity when they chose to commit their crimes; therefore, they have no rights and so it's not slavery.

So, no historical examples proving that it's ever been done anywhere at any time?

Of course not, because it hasn't.

How is that even relevant?

Right is right, regardless of its consequences.

[Galloism]

Seizure of assets of convicted criminals

What about the families of those convicted criminals? What about wife, children, etc? Shouldn't they have first crack at the loot?

No, because they didn't own it.

So, if a husband and wife bought a house, you think she should give it up because he committed a crime? You think small children should be cut loose with nothing if their dad commits a crime?

Putting said criminals to work

Slavery, or you planning on paying them?

They gave up their humanity when they chose to commit their crimes; therefore, they have no rights and so it's not slavery.

Their DNA changed? This will make it easier for us to identify criminals.

So, no historical examples proving that it's ever been done anywhere at any time?

Of course not, because it hasn't.

How is that even relevant?

Right is right, regardless of its consequences.

Yes, because the consequences of peoples' rights getting trampled all over, the people getting left out in the cold and hungry due to no fault of their own, and the inevitable slavery of someone who jaywalked is all "reasonable" for this little utopia you've constructed.

[Saige Dragon]

Yes, because the consequences of peoples' rights getting trampled all over, the people getting left out in the cold and hungry due to no fault of their own, and the inevitable slavery of someone who jaywalked is all "reasonable" for this little utopia you've constructed.

Don't worry. You can revolt, Bluth won't mind, it's inevitable.

[The South Islands]

I think everyone except the Jews should be able to own guns.

[Bluth Corporation]

So, if a husband and wife bought a house

Yeah, you see where I said "they don't own it"? So if the wife DOES own it, then it doesn't fall under that, does it?

Please start paying attention.

They gave up their humanity when they chose to commit their crimes; therefore, they have no rights and so it's not slavery.

Their DNA changed? This will make it easier for us to identify criminals.[/quote]
We've been over this already, in another thread.

So, no historical examples proving that it's ever been done anywhere at any time?

Of course not, because it hasn't.

How is that even relevant?

Right is right, regardless of its consequences.

Yes, because the consequences of peoples' rights getting trampled all over,

Actually, no, the whole point of this is that NO ONE'S rights will be violated.

the people getting left out in the cold and hungry due to no fault of their own,

Whose fault it is is irrelevant; they don't own it, so they have no entitlement to it.

and the inevitable slavery of someone who jaywalked is all "reasonable" for this little utopia you've constructed.

Who said jaywalking was a legitimate crime?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Or maybe its because so many criminals are let out of prision because they have been "rehabilitated".

Which everyone knows is street slang for being worse than when they went in.

It wouldn't be anywhere near the problem it is today if we'd end the stupid and failed drug war. Don't arrest people for victimless crimes.

[Galloism]

So, if a husband and wife bought a house

Yeah, you see where I said "they don't own it"? So if the wife DOES own it, then it doesn't fall under that, does it?

Please start paying attention.

But he half owns it. Does the government own half the house?

They gave up their humanity when they chose to commit their crimes; therefore, they have no rights and so it's not slavery.

Their DNA changed? This will make it easier for us to identify criminals.

We've been over this already, in another thread.

Yes, your flawed definition of what counts as "human" is still as absurd now as it was then.

So, no historical examples proving that it's ever been done anywhere at any time?

Of course not, because it hasn't.

How is that even relevant?

Right is right, regardless of its consequences.

You haven't proven that anything you say is right. You've just asserted it - over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

Yes, because the consequences of peoples' rights getting trampled all over,

Actually, no, the whole point of this is that NO ONE'S rights will be violated.

Wasn't it you that just talked about enslaving humans against their will? Oh right, they're not "human" anymore, despite the fact that they'll still be bipedal creatures that walk upright, part of the homo sapien species, and can think and reason just like everyone else can. I forgot.

the people getting left out in the cold and hungry due to no fault of their own,

Whose fault it is is irrelevant; they don't own it, so they have no entitlement to it.

So you don't believe in inheritances either? A child should not inherit his father's/mother's home, farm, etc, since they don't own it? This is how we're financing the government - I get it. We take everyone's stuff when they die.

and the inevitable slavery of someone who jaywalked is all "reasonable" for this little utopia you've constructed.

Who said jaywalking was a legitimate crime?

If would be, if you don't own the street and violated someone's property rights by jaywalking across it.