PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)
-   -   WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS THE WAY WE REGULATE GUNS (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/337878-we-need-regulate-cars-way-we-regulate-guns.html)

tbomachines 04-22-2013 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmaysob (Post 3135086)
the above post was meant to mock the anti gun ideas. it does a very good job of it too. lets make full autos illegal as "i myself see no need for them and they just waste bullets" - lets make high performance cars illegal "as i see no need for them and they just waste gas" its all silly really.
Yet somehow it just ends up mocking itself....

cmbdiesel 04-22-2013 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Air&Road (Post 3135082)
Just curious: How many people were killed last year in auto accidents? How many people were killed by privately owned firearms?
How many people died in bizarre gardening accidents?

Or choking on someone else's vomit?

Or spontaneous combustion?

ruchase 04-22-2013 04:22 PM
Forgive me for my naiveté…however, I realize one argument for owning high powered guns with large capacity magazines (dare I say assault rifles), is that it infringes upon the right to bear.

My question is why does the right to bear stop with these weapons?

After all, if the right to bear is to help individuals fight tyranny (and hence the need to keep updated weaponry in one’s arsenal, as compared to muskets), then shouldn’t we be more concerned about why we are unable to own more sophisticated weaponry (that matches the military’s)? For instance, we should be more concerned as to why we are not allowed to have a personal drone with guided missiles, a tank in the garage and maybe even a battleship for those close to water?

kmaysob 04-22-2013 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruchase (Post 3135115)
Forgive me for my naiveté…however, I realize one argument for owning high powered guns with large capacity magazines (dare I say assault rifles), is that it infringes upon the right to bear.

My question is why does the right to bear stop with these weapons?

After all, if the right to bear is to help individuals fight tyranny (and hence the need to keep updated weaponry in one’s arsenal, as compared to muskets), then shouldn’t we be more concerned about why we are unable to own more sophisticated weaponry (that matches the military’s)? For instance, we should be more concerned as to why we are not allowed to have a personal drone with guided missiles, a tank in the garage and maybe even a battleship for those close to water?
so what your saying is a .22 is a gateway gun?:eek::D

i see no harm in what is owned. full autos up to explosives ect are all very much registered and almost no crimes are committed with them.
(that is the legally owned ones)

ruchase 04-22-2013 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmaysob (Post 3135124)
full autos up to explosives ect are all very much registered and almost no crimes are committed with them.
(that is the legally owned ones)
Personally, I'm indifferent to the gun debate. I suppose being a gun owner and living in CA, you have to be. However, I also don't buy the argument of absolutely no background checks for prospective gun owners. I think there has to be some commitment towards responsible gun ownership, or at least an attempt in that direction.

kmaysob 04-22-2013 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruchase (Post 3135135)
Personally, I'm indifferent to the gun debate. I suppose being a gun owner and living in CA, you have to be. However, I also don't buy the argument of absolutely no background checks for prospective gun owners. I think there has to be some commitment towards responsible gun ownership, or at least an attempt in that direction.
anything bought in a store or at the gun show gets a background check done before transfer. only personal sales requires no background check. that one im tied on. if im selling to a complete stranger i can see doing a check. on the other hand, its bs that my brother would need to have a background check to buy a gun off of me.

if they decided tomorrow that all sales require checks, it is what it is. ill be just fine with it. registration and restriction is what i am against.

JB3 04-22-2013 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmaysob (Post 3135142)
anything bought in a store or at the gun show gets a background check done before transfer. only personal sales requires no background check. that one im tied on. if im selling to a complete stranger i can see doing a check. on the other hand, its bs that my brother would need to have a background check to buy a gun off of me.

if they decided tomorrow that all sales require checks, it is what it is. ill be just fine with it. registration and restriction is what i am against.

comparing cars to guns is more relevant when it comes to registration and licensing IMO.
For instance if you sold your brother a car, he would need a license, and he would need to register the car, title it, get insurance, ect. You wouldn't have any problem with that right?
All that stuff is required even if you gift the car, so he doesn't have to pay sales tax.

If it became law that background checks were mandatory on gun transfer, im sure favorable regulations would be made for in family transfers.

ruchase 04-22-2013 05:23 PM
The trouble with the gun debate (and almost all other debates in our country today) is that we only seem to hear the position of either extremes (left/right). On the gun debate, the choice almost seems like between Nancy Pelosi's view and that of the NRA. The people in the middle are silent. That is what scares me most.

davidmash 04-22-2013 06:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmaysob (Post 3135124)
so what your saying is a .22 is a gateway gun?:eek::D

i see no harm in what is owned. full autos up to explosives ect are all very much registered and almost no crimes are committed with them.
(that is the legally owned ones)
How do I prove a stolen car is mine if the vin number is not in my name and not registered any where?

Are there any storage requirements for explosives? Could that be related to the lower number of crimes involving explosives? Seems to me that you just made an argument for registration and securing weapons/explosives.

cmbdiesel 04-22-2013 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmaysob (Post 3135142)
anything bought in a store or at the gun show gets a background check done before transfer. only personal sales requires no background check. that one im tied on. if im selling to a complete stranger i can see doing a check. on the other hand, its bs that my brother would need to have a background check to buy a gun off of me.

if they decided tomorrow that all sales require checks, it is what it is. ill be just fine with it. registration and restriction is what i am against.
Not true. Most states do not require background checks at gun shows.
Only Federally licensed dealers are required to perform them.

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

Your idea about being able to sell to your brother, while it's fine if you and your brother are both upstanding members of society...... what happens when your brother happens to be a drug dealing gang banger?

Do you have to get a background check done every time you buy a weapon from a dealer, or does the check stay on file or some such?

TwitchKitty 04-24-2013 01:23 AM
Intent is not worth debate. What is the intent of a car designed to go 185mph? How is that different than a performance firearm intended to shoot paper targets?

"The road to hell...intent...

Skippy 04-24-2013 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmbdiesel (Post 3135234)

Do you have to get a background check done every time you buy a weapon from a dealer, or does the check stay on file or some such?
Generally speaking, yes. There are exceptions in some states for CCW holders, where display of the CCW can be made in lieu of the background check.

Air&Road 04-24-2013 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruchase (Post 3135115)
Forgive me for my naiveté…however, I realize one argument for owning high powered guns with large capacity magazines (dare I say assault rifles), is that it infringes upon the right to bear.

My question is why does the right to bear stop with these weapons?

After all, if the right to bear is to help individuals fight tyranny (and hence the need to keep updated weaponry in one’s arsenal, as compared to muskets), then shouldn’t we be more concerned about why we are unable to own more sophisticated weaponry (that matches the military’s)? For instance, we should be more concerned as to why we are not allowed to have a personal drone with guided missiles, a tank in the garage and maybe even a battleship for those close to water?

Great point!

TX76513 04-24-2013 11:19 AM
There are 13 states that do not allow possession of High Performance Vehicles What are they?

tbomachines 04-24-2013 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwitchKitty (Post 3136033)
Intent is not worth debate. What is the intent of a car designed to go 185mph? How is that different than a performance firearm intended to shoot paper targets?

"The road to hell...intent...
It's still an apples to oranges comparison, I don't get the obsession with clinging to it. Potential 185mph is not the same as shooting targets, period. I'm not even in support of gun regulation, I just support proper argument.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:33 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website