uh oh gun shops under closer scrutiny...

[MissJacksonCA]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/gun-shops-under-closer-scrutiny/n20070712135009990087

I can understand a gun shop once or twice selling weapons to people who go an commit crimes but habitually doing it suggests to me that they're capitalizing on crime in an area by reducing the standards by which they sell guns. They should revoke the licenses of businesses operating in bad crime areas who repeatedly sell to people who commit crimes but on the flipside... wouldn't that just force people to go to the nicer parts of town to buy guns? Or generate more illegal weapons sales?

[Khardis]

From what I read in the article they weren't selling to criminals as that would be illegal. The criminals however were sending in people without criminal records to buy guns under their names. This sucks, but isn't illegal if the gun shop doesn't know it beforehand.

And the rest it seems were being purchased illegally, not from gun shops. But one guy working in the gun shop store offered advice on how t buy one illegally.

Is that so bad? If someone gets out of jail for being busted with pot he is a criminal and cant get a gun or vote. Why should so many Democrats for example want to restore a felons right to vote, but not restore thier right to protect themselves?

[EvilNed]

A criminal can't vote in the US?

[darth los]

A criminal can't vote in the US?

Once convicted of a felony you are disenfranchised. I find this hypocritical that some rights are restored upon release and others are not. They sure are quick to require you to pay taxes and stuff. But alot of individual rights like being able to vote and own guns must be reapplied for. So those who are released from prison aren't citizens in the truest sense of the word.

[MaximusIncredulous]

A criminal can't vote in the US?

Depends on the state. Some only disqualify if a person is incarcerated or on parole but once released and on probation their voting rights are restored, others disqualify based on conviction only which is permanent unless that person fills out some paperwork but it's usually next to impossible to get those rights back in those particular states.

[darth los]

Alot of people take their franchise rights for granted and don't even exercise them . you only miss them when they're taken away. I guess you don't truly appreciate something until it's gone.

[Ivarr]

I am not anti gun ... far from it. I have owned both pistols and rifles and I enjoy target shoorting. But it never fails to amaze me how dubm some humans can be.

When i lived in Maryland, there was a class 3 dealer my friends and I bought things from. (that means he was alowed to sell full auto machine guns)

The shop owners also belonged to or ran an outdoor shooting range not to far away where they would bring a 50 cal machine gun for people to shoot.

I thought they were stable people ... how else could they have a class 3 licence? But it turns out they were selling C 4 under the table and sold some to a group that was going to use it to break into a bank... in the same mall as the store.

Thankfully the group was actually undercover cops. they busted them and came up with all sorts of nasty bits ... Like selling Uzi's to out of state people ....

I have no issue with tight gun laws ... as long as their aim is to keep guns out of criminal hands ... and as long as the result is not making it unreasonably hard for a law abiding person to obtain a firearm.

Hell, i have always thought the right to purchase (or a permit or whatever) should be tied to a safety cource that includes a yearly test to make sure you can hit what your aiming at.

Nothing is more dangerous that a person with a weapon they do not know how to control.

The problem of things like this going under the radar so to speak is the often advasarial relationship gun shops have with the local police. (Though not always).

If people would just respect the right of people to own use firearms in a responsible manor... perhaps both sides could work together to make things more safe for all.

Extreamists kill the will of both sides.

[Khardis]

I am not anti gun ... far from it. I have owned both pistols and rifles and I enjoy target shoorting. But it never fails to amaze me how dubm some humans can be.

When i lived in Maryland, there was a class 3 dealer my friends and I bought things from. (that means he was alowed to sell full auto machine guns)

The shop owners also belonged to or ran an outdoor shooting range not to far away where they would bring a 50 cal machine gun for people to shoot.

I thought they were stable people ... how else could they have a class 3 licence? But it turns out they were selling C 4 under the table and sold some to a group that was going to use it to break into a bank... in the same mall as the store.

Thankfully the group was actually undercover cops. they busted them and came up with all sorts of nasty bits ... Like selling Uzi's to out of state people ....

I have no issue with tight gun laws ... as long as their aim is to keep guns out of criminal hands ... and as long as the result is not making it unreasonably hard for a law abiding person to obtain a firearm.

Hell, i have always thought the right to purchase (or a permit or whatever) should be tied to a safety cource that includes a yearly test to make sure you can hit what your aiming at.

Nothing is more dangerous that a person with a weapon they do not know how to control.

The problem of things like this going under the radar so to speak is the often advasarial relationship gun shops have with the local police. (Though not always).

If people would just respect the right of people to own use firearms in a responsible manor... perhaps both sides could work together to make things more safe for all.

Extreamists kill the will of both sides.

Do you also think that people should be required to take an IQ test in order to vote, and an English test in order to practice free speech?

All gun laws make it harder for legal citizens to get them because, criminals don't follow the law. Case closed.

[Ivarr]

Do you also think that people should be required to take an IQ test in order to vote, and an English test in order to practice free speech?.

God I wish ... (IQ test)

And as far as all things making it hard... in the off chance that your not just being a tool ... I mean laws that are actually anti gun for EVERYONE.

Example - A 5 day waiting period with background check. Does it slow things down... yes. Does it block you from having one, no.

making somebody go through countless hoops of paperwork and requiring letters stating your a good boy from 3 people who are not related... then vetoing things because they don't feel like it that day ... thats a block for no good reason.

[Khardis]

God I wish ... (IQ test)

And as far as all things making it hard... in the off chance that your not just being a tool ... I mean laws that are actually anti gun for EVERYONE.

Example - A 5 day waiting period with background check. Does it slow things down... yes. Does it block you from having one, no.

making somebody go through countless hoops of paperwork and requiring letters stating your a good boy from 3 people who are not related... then vetoing things because they don't feel like it that day ... thats a block for no good reason.

I am not sure you understand how criminals get guns. They buy them illegally. Hence no 5 day waiting period. No background checks, no nothing.

[darth los]

Word. Criminals can't be bothered with formalities like that. That's the problem. When you have people who never intend on following the propper procedures there's really no way to regulate their activity. There will always be underground channels and a black market for unsavory activity.

[Ivarr]

Yes... criminals get guns ... I have long said that if you can't keep bails of <insert drug> from getting into the country ... why do you think people will have trouble getting guns in.

What I mean with the 5 day thing is simply ... its reasonable ... and there is no need to fight over it ... there are real issues .... Like the fact that violent crime is delt down to lessor charges all the time.

To me ... gun ownership is the ultimate testimate to your personal responsibility.

But we spend far too much time focusing on on "guns" as the demon instead of the arsehole who uses them in a crime.

The waiting period thing as far as I think it ... is more for a stop gap to "I'm gonna go buy a gun and blow <insert name's> head off." Five days is not going to kill a person to wait... Yes, even with the fact that they can do instant background checks. If you have to have a gun NOW, perhaps your in more trouble that you think you are.

Punishment for commiting a crime with a gun should be extreamly painful and certain. No gun ... or other weapon ... deal down all day ... But thats just not how it happens ... sadly.

[Khardis]

Yes... criminals get guns ... I have long said that if you can't keep bails of <insert drug> from getting into the country ... why do you think people will have trouble getting guns in.

What I mean with the 5 day thing is simply ... its reasonable ... and there is no need to fight over it ... there are real issues .... Like the fact that violent crime is delt down to lessor charges all the time.

To me ... gun ownership is the ultimate testimate to your personal responsibility.

But we spend far too much time focusing on on "guns" as the demon instead of the arsehole who uses them in a crime.

The waiting period thing as far as I think it ... is more for a stop gap to "I'm gonna go buy a gun and blow <insert name's> head off." Five days is not going to kill a person to wait... Yes, even with the fact that they can do instant background checks. If you have to have a gun NOW, perhaps your in more trouble that you think you are.

Punishment for commiting a crime with a gun should be extreamly painful and certain. No gun ... or other weapon ... deal down all day ... But thats just not how it happens ... sadly.

I never disagreed with a 5 day wait for guns as a rule, because it does usually help sometimes if someone who is say NOT a criminal and snaps wants to go buy one and kill someone. Thats the only thing it stops though.

but this **** about mandatory trigger locks, not being able to keep them in your car, or limits to magazine size, or mandatory finger printing for gun owners is bull****.

[Danny]

er, i highly doubt the fingerprinting is bull****, if i were a cop id damn sure want to know who owns the big guns in your area, and if a nutjob goes all columbine on a group of school kids then fingerprints are gonna say who used the gun.
let me put it this way, say someone performs a murder with your gun, they could test for prints, adn if they didnt match yours, the ones on record you be proving rightfully innocent, if they didnt take the prints hey, sorry pal, your gun, your ass in jail.

[Khardis]

er, i highly doubt the fingerprinting is bull****, if i were a cop id damn sure want to know who owns the big guns in your area, and if a nutjob goes all columbine on a group of school kids then fingerprints are gonna say who used the gun.
let me put it this way, say someone performs a murder with your gun, they could test for prints, adn if they didnt match yours, the ones on record you be proving rightfully innocent, if they didnt take the prints hey, sorry pal, your gun, your ass in jail.
They would check my prints and see they didnt match up anyway. And if we should require a fingerprinting for gun ownership, why not require fingerprinting and tamper proof ID requirement to vote? Oh thats right, because then the Democrats couldn't get all their Mexican and illegal pals to vote.

[mista_mo]

people who aren't finger printed can't be caught as easily......whats the problem with getting finger printed? You own a weapon designed to kill people (defense or not, the gun is anouther way for people to kill each other) and if a crime is committed with a weapon similar to yours, or if you commit one, it just makes it easier for the cops to either rule you out as a suspect, or arrest you....

why the big fuss, it's a public safety measure...

now, unless you plan on committing crimes with your weapon, then i can see your gripe about the issue.

[Khardis]

people who aren't finger printed can't be caught as easily......whats the problem with getting finger printed? You own a weapon designed to kill people (defense or not, the gun is anouther way for people to kill each other) and if a crime is committed with a weapon similar to yours, or if you commit one, it just makes it easier for the cops to either rule you out as a suspect, or arrest you....

why the big fuss, it's a public safety measure...

now, unless you plan on committing crimes with your weapon, then i can see your gripe about the issue.

I refuse to being treated like a criminal. Fingerprinting is for people who work for the government or for criminals. I am niether, therefore they shouldnt require my fingerprints. The barrel of the gun is marked and each bullet will retain that barrels mark. The registration of the guns numbers will turn up with my name on it. They dont need the prints. This is just a way to criminalize something thats a god given right. Should you give fingerprints in order to vote?

[mista_mo]

votes can't be used as a weapon for potential criminals to kill can they?

[Khardis]

votes can't be used as a weapon for potential criminals to kill can they?

I don't know, I doubt many democrats who hate Bush would agree.

Should I have to be fingerprinted to get a car? Cars kill more people than guns in this country. How about cigarettes?

[mista_mo]

again,

i can see where your going with the car one, even if cars are designed as a option for transport, not a murder weapon.

but with smokes it's different....
you don't go around killing people with smokes...sure, second hand smoke is dangerous, but not unless your expoused to it for a hell of a long time.


guns on the other hand, are ment to kill people,. it's plain and simple.

[Danny]

yeah i agree , people can bitch at me about "protection" all they like but the ONLY reason a gun exists to take life, pure and simple they are killing machines.
funnily enough cars arent designed to kill people outside of a mad max movie.

[darth los]

yeah i agree , people can bitch at me about "protection" all they like but the ONLY reason a gun exists to take life, pure and simple they are killing machines.
funnily enough cars arent designed to kill people outside of a mad max movie.

The bottom line is that it is a constitutional right to bear arms. I hate guns personally but i see the need for them. The problem is that once you give people a right it's next to impossible to take it away. It's like all these social services programs spawned by the new deal, social security in particular. These are unheard of in history but now that it's here it's always going to exist in some form.

[Khardis]

again,

i can see where your going with the car one, even if cars are designed as a option for transport, not a murder weapon.

but with smokes it's different....
you don't go around killing people with smokes...sure, second hand smoke is dangerous, but not unless your expoused to it for a hell of a long time.


guns on the other hand, are ment to kill people,. it's plain and simple.

How about knives, how about fast food? Dead is dead, whether lung cancer, a heart attack or a bullet.

[mista_mo]

There is always a requirement for a weapon to protect oneself. It just needs to be scurtenized and put through a fine comb. Afterall, if we never had guns, we would be wiped out by someoen we consider "brutal and barabaric" for using them. It's simple that way, but sayign that people who own weapons whouldn't be at least finger printed is bats*it insane.

how many people (who were considered of sound mind) have committed crimes with weapons? These people have passed through all the tests, and quizzes and what not to get the weapon, and were deemed of reasonable mind to safely and legally use a weapon....It happens, unfortunatly.

*edit*

again, some of your examples show you are missing the point

Fast food, smokes, and cars aren't ment for killing. Guns are. I agree with knives, unfortunatly, they are easy to get, and aren't regulated enough.

dead is indeed dead, but the means to that death yield different paths.

[Khardis]

yeah i agree , people can bitch at me about "protection" all they like but the ONLY reason a gun exists to take life, pure and simple they are killing machines.
funnily enough cars arent designed to kill people outside of a mad max movie.

So? They're made for killing, so? Whats your point? I didn't buy my gun for protection either, i bought it to shoot human beings and end their lives should the absolute need to arise, protection just happens to be one of them. So?

Being killed with a gun isn't any more dead than being killed with a baseball bat. Does killing someone with a tire iron merit less punishment than killing someone with a shotgun?

Making me take fingerprints is criminalization of my legal right by fascist politics. If I kill someone with my gun then the barrel markings on the bullet will come back from forensics and check out with my registration number. I will be caught. The fingerprints are not required.

Ya know for people who cry about "domestic spying" you sure are being choosy about which privacy rights you are willing to give up.

Should the government be allowed to record your phone calls? I mean after all, how many hitmen, and murders are planned over the phone?

[Danny]

How about knives, how about fast food? Dead is dead, whether lung cancer, a heart attack or a bullet.

no it isnt, good lord , a big mac isnt a sentient creature with an intent to kill you for wahts in your wallet, drawing that comparison is just unbelievabley naive:eek:

[Khardis]

The bottom line is that it is a constitutional right to bear arms. I hate guns personally but i see the need for them. The problem is that once you give people a right it's next to impossible to take it away. It's like all these social services programs spawned by the new deal, social security in particular. These are unheard of in history but now that it's here it's always going to exist in some form.

The right to bear arms, speech and freedom of religion weren't given to me. They were always mine as a birthright. The constitution merely disables the government from trampling on those god given birth rights.

Thats the difference between the American governments core and the governments of Europe and the rest of the world. My rights don't come from the government.


There is always a requirement for a weapon to protect oneself. It just needs to be scurtenized and put through a fine comb. Afterall, if we never had guns, we would be wiped out by someoen we consider "brutal and barabaric" for using them. It's simple that way, but sayign that people who own weapons whouldn't be at least finger printed is bats*it insane.

how many people (who were considered of sound mind) have committed crimes with weapons? These people have passed through all the tests, and quizzes and what not to get the weapon, and were deemed of reasonable mind to safely and legally use a weapon....It happens, unfortunatly.

And what did the fingerprints do to apprehend them? Thats right nothing. Because they were clearly stupid enough to use a registered gun that can be forensically linked to their registration number.

If you are for fingerprinting prospective gun owners who will do it legally, then you MUST be for the government having the right to tap your phone calls, monitor your purchases and and interrogate you at will. Afterall thats all under the same umbrella.

[mista_mo]

again, some of your examples show you are missing the point

Fast food, smokes, and cars aren't ment for killing. Guns are. I agree with knives, unfortunatly, they are easy to get, and aren't regulated enough.

dead is indeed dead, but the means to that death yield different paths.

[Khardis]

no it isnt, good lord , a big mac isnt a sentient creature with an intent to kill you for wahts in your wallet, drawing that comparison is just unbelievabley naive:eek:

And a gun is a sentient creature with an intent to kill? No, its not, its on the same level as a big mac or a car. Its a potentially lethal inanimate item. Who is holding it is who decides whether or not it will be used legitimately or hazardously. And a fingerprint isn't required to find out who killed someone with their registered gun. Just the bullet lodged in the victim.

[darth los]

The right to bear arms, speech and freedom of religion weren't given to me. They were always mine as a birthright. The constitution merely disables the government from trampling on those god given birth rights.

Thats the difference between the American governments core and the governments of Europe and the rest of the world. My rights don't come from the government.

But in norder to excercise those rights the gov't must recognize them first. For thousands of years these rights were not recognized by respective nations and the effect was not having them at all. You can't say it's my right to committ human sacrifice or sniff coke because my religion requires it. The supreme court has held that just because a person believes something to be their right whether it's due to religious convictions or whatever does not exempt them from ignoring an otherwise valid law. So the gov't must pre approve any rights you believe you were born with.

[Khardis]

again, some of your examples show you are missing the point

Fast food, smokes, and cars aren't ment for killing. Guns are. I agree with knives, unfortunatly, they are easy to get, and aren't regulated enough.

dead is indeed dead, but the means to that death yield different paths.

So killing someone with a bat isn't as bad as killing them with a gun, thats what you're saying.

The INTENT behind the item isn't what matters. Its what is done with the item that matters. That a gun is made to kill people is irrelevant. Cars are made for transportation and ye tthey kill MORE people. WHICH is the bigger risk? Pools kill more children then guns, why don't you have to take a child safety course or get fingerprinted to have one installed?

Instead of trading your freedom for the illusion of safety think with your mind for a second and not your emotions.

Tracing a gun is incredibly easy. When you fire a gun the bullet is carved by the barrel as it exits. This marking is as unique as a fingerprint. And when the bullet is retrieved it links DIRECTLY back to the gun.

the ONLY time that marking is irrelevant is when the goddamned gun is not being used by the person who registered it, or its black market.

In all cases you do NOT need the fingerprint. In the illegal variety cases its not going to lead you t the actual shooter. In the legal cases where a legal registered weapon is used illegally, the bullet will lead you to them anyway.

The fingerprinting is just extra excess police state garbage that they can use MUCH LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT to control your life and limit your freedom. PERIOD. If you do not understand that, then it is YOU who is missing the point.

[mista_mo]

he ment the person behind the gun.


bic macs- eadible object, used for consumption and enjoyment of the purchaser

Guns- uneadible object, used for killing anouther sentient being and or harming anouther.


if you find the weapon (as alot of criminals will toss the gun away) you can check for prints. if the owners prints are on record viola, they could have a match. if they aren't, they are stumped for finding anouther.

and yes, they could use the grooving in the barrel to compare to the actual bullet fired and taken out of said corpse.

Both help with the case.

[Khardis]

But in norder to excercise those rights the gov't must recognize them first. For thousands of years these rights were not recognized by respective nations and the effect was not having them at all. You can't say it's my right to committ human sacrifice or sniff coke because my religion requires it. The supreme court has held that just because a person believes something to be their right whether it's due to religious convictions or whatever does not exempt them from ignoring an otherwise valid law. So the gov't must pre approve any rights you believe you were born with.

My rights are defined clearly in the constitution which predates the government. I was born with certain inalienable rights, and the constitution was drafted to make clear which ones those were, so that when the federal government was created it would not be allowed to trample them.

I know that not all governments recognize those rights, Europe and Asia for example have governments that don't recognize those rights, but which merely assign pale versions of those rights to be taken away as pleased. Thats the difference. Those are tyrannical governments. Thats the difference.

[Danny]

So killing someone with a bat isn't as bad as killing them with a gun, thats what you're saying.




not wanting to drag this threads debate off topic but i had a total brain fart at this one, i was about to reply "why would you kill someone with a flying rodent?":lol:

-carry on, randomness over.

[mista_mo]

again my friend, you are completely goign over the point


intent does matter

the intention of a firearm is to kill, everyoen who owns a gun, who sells one, who wants to buy one realizes that

The intention of a baseball bat is too play baseball. No one is going to realize if your going to smash someone over the head with it, they think you want to hit a ball around with some friends.

The intents of each object is completely different.

one is designed to kill
the other is designed to play sports.

trying to finger print people who want to buy a baseball bat or a hockey stick is laughable.

[Khardis]

he ment the person behind the gun.


bic macs- eadible object, used for consumption and enjoyment of the purchaser

Guns- uneadible object, used for killing anouther sentient being and or harming anouther.


if you find the weapon (as alot of criminals will toss the gun away) you can check for prints. if the owners prints are on record viola, they could have a match. if they aren't, they are stumped for finding anouther.

and yes, they could use the grooving in the barrel to compare to the actual bullet fired and taken out of said corpse.

Both help with the case.

Not all guns are used for killing humans. .22 calibur rifles for example. So wrong. Anything can be a weapon, and you didnt answer my question.

If I find a weapon, and I need to know if it came from a criminal, I check the prints on the gun to see if it matches a criminals prints. If it doesn't, I use the serial number to locate who the gun is registered to.

There was no need for the original owner to be printed since, the gun will link back to him ANYWAY.


again my friend, you are completely goign over the point


intent does matter

the intention of a firearm is to kill, everyoen who owns a gun, who sells one, who wants to buy one realizes that

Wrong, the point isn't the reason an item was created. Thats what we call an emotional argument. Its a false argument and derivative of faulty logic.


The intention of a baseball bat is too play baseball. No one is going to realize if your going to smash someone over the head with it, they think you want to hit a ball around with some friends.

Then why do so many bar owners and convenience's store owners buy them specifically for bashing peoples heads? Oh right, youre using an emotional argument in place of a logical one. WE MUST CRIMINALIZE ONE ITEM THATS A WEAPON BUT NOT ANOTHER BECAUSE THIS ONE IS SCARIER!



The intents of each object is completely different.


Yes and there is multiple intents for every item. I can buy a dozen big macs, kidnap someone and force feed them until their stomach bursts like that move Seven. They are still a lethal weapon and a method of death.


one is designed to kill
the other is designed to play sports.


Tell that to every bar owner who has a bat under their bar with "peacemaker" written on it.



trying to finger print people who want to buy a baseball bat or a hockey stick is laughable.

Trying to outlaw 1 item because its scarier than another equally as lethal if used properly item is whats laughable. Its an emotional argument that deserves to be pointed out and laughed at.

[mista_mo]

in answer to your question

no, i do not believe killing someone with a bat is any different then killing someone with a gun..you are putting words in my mouth, or seeing something in the post that isn't there.

bats aren't regulated because there design is to play sports, not to murder or maim.

guns on the other hand are ment for the above.
the intent behind the creation of an object plays heavily into what one will do with it.

I've allready stated that it is a good idea to add mandatory finger printing for weapons owners, do i need to say it again?

emotional buddy?

i do not think telling you that a baseball bat (again, re-read the name if you wish it, go ahead, i don't mind) is ment to play a sport is very emotional, it's logic.

you seem to be over reacting to someone stating something contradictory to what you think, and are getting pissed.

i'm using this simple logic

baseball bat ment for baseball
big mac ment for eating
gun ment for killing

honestly, wtf is so hard to understand about it? i'm not beign emotional, this is something that everyone knows is true.

[Khardis]

in answer to your question

no, i do not believe killing someone with a bat is any different then killing someone with a gun..you are putting words in my mouth, or seeing something in the post that isn't there.

Ah, so bats then are equally as lethal as guns in terms of death. If I kill someone with a bat, they are just as dead as being killed with a gun. OK, so why don't we make people get permission and fingerprinted to buy such a lethal item such as a bat? Is it because we really just want to control peoples lives like the fascists we are or just that we are hypocrites and don't REALLY care about death, just the scary items that cause it and how we can deny them to others?



bats aren't regulated because there design is to play sports, not to murder or maim.


And yet they are equally as lethal. Funny... you'd think that if DEATH was what you were really worried about, then you would try to get rid of the causes of death, not emotionally cherry pick the political scapegoat du jour to ban or make hard to get.

And



guns on the other hand are ment for the above.
the intent behind the creation of an object plays heavily into what one will do with it.
Funny, god made me have a Penis for procreation and yet I have found many useful and fun uses for it.



I've allready stated that it is a good idea to add mandatory finger printing for weapons owners, do i need to say it again?

Well you can state it if you want to, but its not a good idea. Its a bad idea, its a fascist bull**** idea. Sorry. If you believe something are retarded as that, how can I count on you to help defend our freedom if someone ever wanted to take away our right to criticize the government?


And yes you are being emotional. Many items have many differnt uses. Bats for beating peoples heads, guns for paperweights. Its irrelevant. If you are worried about DEATH then focus on making it hard for people to have items that create death, knives, cars, guns, cigs, junk food, drugs, cell phones, etc etc etc on and on. Dont try to pretend thats what you're trying to solve though when you want to ignore stuff like cars which kill more people world wide than guns ever have.

This argument isn't about guns by the way. I will tell you what its about and has always been about. The souls ability to breath. You want to stifle my rights so that you can feel better. Doesn't work. Sorry.

[mista_mo]

do not call my loyalty to my country into question ever. I was raised in a military family, with every man on my side in the canadian forces. I intend to continue that tradition.


and you are the one who seems to be arguing with emotion..you know what..never mind. nothing is getting through your head anyway, you poke at what i say, and use what you like, while ignoring the facts.

oh, and i do not wanna stifle your freedom, far from it, but finger printing as stifling your freedom? okay...

[Khardis]

do not call my loyalty to my country into question ever. I was raised in a military family, with every man on my side in the canadian forces. I intend to continue that tradition.


and you are the one who seems to be arguing with emotion..you know what..never mind. nothing is getting through your head anyway, you poke at what i say, and use what you like, while ignoring the facts.

oh, and i do not wanna stifle your freedom, far from it, but finger printing as stifling your freedom? okay...

You're not using facts, thats the problem. You are using emotional argumentative fallacy in place of factual logical argument.

You claim you are worried about death and killing, yet you only want to make a small corss section of the death causing items harder to come by. Its a lie. Thats not your true motive. As with every gun grabbers argument, the true motive is that Guns scare you and you dont want people to have them or to have easy access to them. You want to put your personal security over my personal rights and freedoms. Its wrong. Its unpatriotic. Sorry, but thats what it is.

If you said you wanted to make it hard for people to kill people and we should make it harder to get cars, bats, guns, big macs etc I would call you a fascist... but at LEAST you would be a logical fascist.

I am arguing with facts and logic emotionally. You should learn the difference. And No i will nto get your emotional diatribe through my skull because if i accept your premise that I should have to give up that little inch of freedom, then I have to keep giving it up elsewhere too.

Question.

Oh and you're not the only one who has military tradition in his family my Uncle is a vietnam vet, and both my grandfathers served in WW2.

The difference between us, is that I am more resistant to give up freedoms and privacies they fought for than you are.

DO you think people should be required to have tamper proof ID and or fingerprint before voting to prove who they are?

[Ivarr]

There is nothing wrong with killing effectivly being the purpose of an item. Unfortunatly we do not live in a perfect world.

However it is also important to remember that for most people... killing is NOT the purpose of using a gun against another person. The purpose is to stop them from attacking them. Them being killed is just an unfortunate side effect.