re: Gun regulation...interesting

<blockquote><b>Quoting ~Ice Princess~:</b>" Iran allows private possession of handguns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iran Egypt allows handguns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/egypt"</blockquote>


Not weapons that the government uses. That's what the discussion was about. Assault type weapons.

Quoting ~Ice Princess~:" Iran allows private possession of handguns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iran Egypt allows handguns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/egypt"

While those countries have or had oppressive regimes, I was thinking of the more tyrannical ones like cambodia, burma, north korea.
While the middle east/north africa is usually ruled by terrible, oppressive groups, the men usually have a fair amount of freedom if they abide by the laws.

<blockquote><b>Quoting khigh:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting ~Ice Princess~:</b>" Iran allows private possession of handguns. ... [snip!] ... Not weapons that the government uses. That's what the discussion was about. Assault type weapons."</blockquote>




We don't have all the weapons our government has either...
Hence, George can't have a plane, or at least the missiles to it...

And the previous posts were in response to the 2nd amendment.

<blockquote><b>Quoting TheNuge:</b>" While those countries have or had oppressive regimes, I was thinking of the more tyrannical ones like ... [snip!] ... is usually ruled by terrible, oppressive groups, the men usually have a fair amount of freedom if they abide by the laws."</blockquote>




I know they can't in North Korea. I'll check the others later.

I was pointing out that what khigh said was inaccurate.

I would say Iran is pretty oppressive though...

's Quoting ~Ice Princess~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting TheNuge:</b>" While those countries have or had oppressive ... [snip!] ... the others later. I was pointing out that what khigh said was inaccurate. I would say Iran is pretty oppressive though..."

It's very oppressive, but lots citizens support the regime. and, it's not all that oppressive to men who are religious.
By no means am i saying it is acceptable, it's just not like N. Korea or burma...

Wow this thread got catty  


My take: I don't think there's a reason for civilians to have assult style weaponry. The problem is: they are available legally now. They are in existance. I can't see a law banning them getting rid of them. To say that is naive... and what about those who already have them? I don't see those who already have them just handing them over... I guess what I'm trying to say is that a ban would create criminals out of some responsible gun owners. Should there NOW be less distrubution/ sale of such weapons, to limit the supply? Absoloutly. Should there be stricter laws going forward for obtaining a weapon? Yep. Won't get rid of the problem but could help contain it.

I just don't see a ban being enforceable. Just like the current law in California states that a person who's been under lock down psychiatric care cannot live in a household in which guns of any kind are kept for 5 years. Not enforceable.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Mom.to.PoohBear:</b>" Shooting a gun that was made to kill people is incredibly disgusting. "</blockquote>




Why?

Quoting khigh:" <blockquote><b>Quoting ~Ice Princess~:</b>" Iran allows private possession of handguns. ... [snip!] ... Not weapons that the government uses. That's what the discussion was about. Assault type weapons."

But you can't have the weaponary the government uses or else you would be able to keep a M1 Abrahams and the ammunition's for it, and a Tomahawk missile.

<blockquote><b>Quoting The (super kinky) Master:</b>" But you can't have the weaponary the government uses or else you would be able to keep a M1 Abrahams and the ammunition's for it, and a Tomahawk missile."</blockquote>




How do you know people don't have those? It's not hard to think that people can buy things on the black market.

Quoting ILOVEWINE:" <blockquote><b>Quoting The (super kinky) Master:</b>" But you can't have the weaponary ... [snip!] ... How do you know people don't have those? It's not hard to think that people can buy things on the black market."

So therefore just in case someone has bought one illegally EVERYONE should be able to go down to a store and buy one for protection?

<blockquote><b>Quoting The (super kinky) Master:</b>" So therefore just in case someone has bought one illegally EVERYONE should be able to go down to a store and buy one for protection?"</blockquote>



Yes because that's what I said. Awesome interpreting skills.


Uh no. But people can buy and build anything they want. And guns are no more deadly than the hundreds of things that kill people each day. Drugs, cars, kinves, starvation

Quoting ILOVEWINE:" <blockquote><b>Quoting The (super kinky) Master:</b>" So therefore just in case someone ... [snip!] ... they want. And guns are no more deadly than the hundreds of things that kill people each day. Drugs, cars, kinves, starvation"

 

Did I say that's what you said? No I don't believe I did.

Rather you took something I was saying to someone else, turned it around and made a completely unrelated comment that had absolutely no baring in the discussion. What does someone buying a tank illegally on the black market have anything to do with people buying weaponary legally, due to the 2nd amendment right of being able to have the same weapons as the government?

And did I ever once mention that guns were the only things that can kill people? Actually if you can point to anywhere in that comment where I mentioned guns and gun control at all I'll be amazed.

Quoting Dr. Paradigm Shift:" Ooooh, a medical coder--let me go ahead and write that down. "

 

Thanks for proving my point.