|
10399. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 3:48:50 AM the risk is in commiting a violent crime... low risk preparing for one. If you are commited to such an act, not much is going to stop someone 10400. vonKreedon - 7/24/2012 3:15:38 PM It's going to be more expensive and risky to buy a gun illegally than legally. The broader, the more pervasive, the legal restrictions the more expensive and risky the illegal alternatives. This is pretty basic prohibition market behavior. 10401. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 4:00:44 PM I don't agree. I think you can get an illegal gun pretty cheaply compared to market value... you can also steal them (although that is risky). I was watching a news report where a guy bought a gang gun for $50 or $100 - a shitty condition SIG, but still nicer than anything I've got.
What you can't get illegally perhaps is the precise gun you were after.
Maybe that price goes up with widespread registration, but again --- it doesn't put up the kind of barriers that would be needed to stop a determined individual. The barriers that would be required to stop them don't fit, and wouldn't actually stop the mayhem; they'd only stop the gun - maybe. 10402. vonKreedon - 7/24/2012 4:58:00 PM I'm certainly not arguing for gun confiscation, but I'm not sure how one can argue that controlling the distribution of guns would not effect the illegal availability of guns. As you say, outlaws could steal guns, but that is risky; it also would become more difficult if gun locks/gun safes were a requirement. Plus requiring registration and licensing would make it riskier for criminals to walk around with guns since any police stop would result in being arrested unless they legally owned the gun. An illegal market for guns would likely expand, but the cost would go up as would the risk if we no longer had and unfettered ability to sell guns person-to-person as we do today.
Plus, people who legally own guns would be required to prove that they know the law regarding guns and that they know how to safely own and operate their guns, things that are not currently required.
Registration and licensing wouldn't stop gun violence, but it would, IMO, reduce gun violence over the long term. It would specifically reduce unintended gun violence as owners would be required to safely store guns and be trained in safe use of guns. 10403. iiibbb - 7/24/2012 6:37:25 PM a) licensing and registration, where it exists, is very expensive and do not treat gun owners particularly well (Illinois is almost a gotcha state in terms of regulation). If society wants it to exist more broadly it would have to be cheaper and less Byzantine.
b) licensing and registration would have to mean something. It would actually have to convey some authority to the holder - in particular freedom from harassment by overzealous law enforcement. People who are genuinely trying to follow the law shouldn't be raked across the coals (so to speak)
c) places where guns are restricted should have the capacity to locker them while a gun owner conducts their business (police check weapons when they enter court houses). 10404. Wombat - 7/25/2012 3:06:02 PM Concerned:
Do you seriously beilieve what you have written below?
"According to themselves, Nazis are socialists. They used the Soviet swastika, red and black socialist flag color scheme and American Socialist salute. Nazis are statists requiring total government control of the private sector - much like what 0bama wants. Left Wing to the core.
Wombat - another Lefty without the intellectual capital to buy a clue. I'd say 0bama is much closer to Naziism politically than the average American."
I'd be interested in your sourcing for your statements in the first paragraph. 10405. judithathome - 7/25/2012 7:41:04 PM American socialist salutes? Are you serious?
Where do you think the American socialists GOT those salutes? 10406. vonKreedon - 7/25/2012 7:54:01 PM 
So were the Nazis Hindu? Are the Hindu's Nazis? Is the Hindu religion inherently communist? I'm so confused.
10407. Wombat - 7/25/2012 8:19:50 PM It's Concerned's unified theory of politico-religious affiliation. All religions/ideologies are "leftist" except for his...
Waiting for an answer to my question about sourcing. Don't make me do the research for you... 10408. vonKreedon - 7/25/2012 8:26:17 PM Yeah, the Russian Imperial Eagle does seem an unlikely choice for Leninist money. 10409. concerned - 7/26/2012 7:11:32 PM RE. 10404 -
I've already sourced this information in this forum in the past, perhaps multiple times so.
And of course, Occam's Razor says it's vanishingly improbable to be coincidence that the German National Socialists adopted both the American Socialist Party salute AND the provisional Soviet Government's swastika. 10410. concerned - 7/26/2012 7:12:59 PM Re. 10408 -
It has been definitively established that scrip showing both the swastika and the Russian Imperial eagle was never issued while the Czars were in power. 10411. concerned - 7/26/2012 7:13:52 PM HE DID, dipshit...what do you think "dead or alive!" meant?
'Alive' is not assassination, regardless of what you think.
10412. concerned - 7/26/2012 7:27:48 PM There's nothing right wing about the Nazis - in fact the Nazi Party was popular among Leftists internationally during the 1930's until Germany began its military aggression. And who doesn't recall a well regarded (by Lefties) poster in the Mote who thought fascism was still a pretty a good idea a few years back? Then we have 0bama with his distinctly fascist Big Brother ideas. Face it. The Left owns fascism.
Note to Lefties: You can't get away with arbitrarily embracing Naziism as being part of your ideological brotherhood and then turn on a dime and assign them as 'right wing' (when they, btw, have none of the right wing's characteristics) simply because you decide you don't like them any more. Sheesh. 10413. concerned - 7/26/2012 7:37:28 PM Where do you think the American socialists GOT those salutes?
From a Socialist, Francis Bellamy, in 1892, who recommended it for US school children. You could have looked this up yourself, you know, rather than asking such an ignorant question.
10414. Wombat - 7/26/2012 8:11:50 PM So I guess Concerned will no longer be saying the Pledge of Allegiance, since Bellamy also wrote that. Darned Socialist... 10415. Wombat - 7/26/2012 8:20:06 PM If the neonazi and holocaust-denying web-site where I found the currency is to be believed, the scrip was issued after the Czar abdicated but before the October Revolution. You do know there were two revolutions in Russia, Concerned?
Also, I must say that using a neonazi and holocaust-denying web site as a source for anything having to do the Nazis and their relationship to socialism is a new low for you, Concerned. 10416. judithathome - 7/26/2012 8:36:43 PM You could have looked this up yourself, you know, rather than asking such an ignorant question.
And you might have noticed that your guy was the same one who wrote the Pledge.
Ignorant is as ignorant does, buddyboy.
10417. Wombat - 7/26/2012 9:04:30 PM According to the Wikipedia, the origins of the umm... "socialist" salute may go as far back as Rome, but its first recorded use was during the French Revolution.
Concerned, when you get up every morning, do you look in the mirror and ask yourself "how am I going to demonstrate my profound ignorance and stupidity today?" 10418. vonKreedon - 7/26/2012 9:13:42 PM Bellamy didn't really write the pledge, I mean his version didn't even have "under God" in it. Damned Socialist...
|
