the second amendment doesn't say any thing about registration or back ground checks. :2 cents:

so why have any laws then? people break them all. actually it doesn't matter if people break them or not, if they get caught, they will get in trouble but more importantly laws in civilized society represent what is acceptable and tolerable and what isn't.

Yeah exactly. But people eternally whine about the second amendment if a law tries to pass requiring background checks or restricting gun show loopholes etc etc.

Um, you can't. At least not without breaking some pretty serious Federal laws that have been in place since 1934.

This post made me laugh..everytime I go for a ride I see mentally ill people driving.

Mostly minivans!

Think about this though...You are a grown man. An adult.
Other grown men are telling you that you are not "allowed" to do something. But they are.

When I think of it like that...it kinda makes me wonder. All this shit is stuff we've made up (rules, laws, regulations, religion, etc.). And a lot of it makes good sense. Maybe even "gun control".
But in the end, it's just another guy telling you that you can or can't do something...but they can. Doesn't matter if you've committed a crime.

Here in Vegas, for instance, if you go to a strip club like Cheetahs or Spearmint Rhino...the girls are required by LAW to wear TWO thongs and keep a certain distance with their knee from your crotch.

Now who the fuck came up with that "law"? lol
Just a group of adults who got together and decided that other adults who are in a strip club have to follow their silly ass "rules" and made it illegal to break them.

And the govt. keeps making stupid rules to treat grown ups like retarded children every day. Matter of face it they DON'T make new laws every day, the media accuses them of not doing their "job".
Don't we have enough freakin' "laws" already?

Personally, I'd like to see the govt. and the cops go back to what they used to do. Waiting until you actually committed a real crime before arresting people.

But here in Vegas, they send undercover cops into the strip clubs to get dances from girls. And when they catch them violating the "rules" (the cops go in acting like "customers" and BEG the girls to break the "rules" for more money), they arrest them.

I know that sounds silly and shouldn't be legal for cops to do. But they do it every night here in Vegas.

That's just one of the results of what happens when one set of adults gets power over other adults and starts going off the rails.

that sounds like entrapment. i think its crazy that is a 'law'. i could see it being a bylaw as local governments make up all kinds of moronic bylaws and they are much easier to pass through but they aren't real laws. some laws are necessary, some laws are bullshit. its pretty easy for most people with enough sense to tell which is which. seems like strip clubs in the US aren't much fun. girls up here don't have to wear anything at all and grind right on your dick.

Its just personal property here. You don't need FFL to transfer a semi auto assault rifle... or anything else other then full auto guns. Just can't know the person is a felon and needs to be a resident of the same state.

It USED to be entrapment. But thanks to the good old "War On Drugs" the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a couple of decades back that cops CAN do what was once entrapment.

And boy have they taken advantage of that.

There is still ONE real strip club left in Vegas. Claudia Marie, Alura Jensen, and Joselyn James all dance there.
It's The Palomino Club. And it is "grandfathered" in because it's been there since 1969.
Full nudity and full liquor bar.

And it makes me sad to think that instead or PROGRESSING as time has gone by, our society has REGRESSED. You could actually go to any titty bar in Vegas in the past and see full nudity and have a beer or a cocktail. Hell, you could see full nudity in many of the shows on the old strip on Fremont St. in the 1920's, 1930's, 40's, 50's, and then on the new strip in the 60's and 70's.

And now in 2013 you can't. Not even IN a strip club. We're fucking going backwards.

I Hope Your Kidding :2 cents:

He was being sarcastic and showing the effect that it would have on the poor. The more regulations and rules and laws and fines and fees that the govt. places on anything restricts it from lower income people.

This whole argument is just ridiculous. Bottom line is CONGRESS should simply repeal the 2nd amendment. Done.

But they don't have the balls to do it. For all their crying and whining and saying that "something" needs to be done...in the end they don't give a fuck. They are only worried about getting re-elected and keeping power. Otherwise they would do their job and repeal the 2nd amendment and THEN begin gun control legally.

There's no such thing as a "semi-auto assault rifle."

I understand the point you are attempting to make but your wording is wrong and it's people like you who spread the incorrect language that others pick up on and then they continue to do the same.

If you want to talk gun laws, do a little research and use the proper terms so as to not confuse others with incorrect information. We get enough of that from the news.

lol, still, good luck getting all those guns off the streets in the next 200 years, it will slow things down but the devil has already landed per say

so you can't even drink in most of these places? geez. i couldn't imagine going to strip joint without being able to drink. laws against what consenting adults do is pretty ridiculous.

Yes, you can drink as long as the strip club is topless only and the girls wear TWO thongs. lol

There is a full nude bar called "Little Darlings" but it has NO beer or liquor.

Only the Palomino Club has full nudity and full liquor. Matter of fact...it's the only strip club on the entire West Coast side of the United States with full nudity and full liquor.

It's just another example of how full grown men and women in the U.S. are treated. Freedom? Yeah, if you think being treated like a 5 year old by the govt. is "free"

you'd think they would be busy with more serious matters. i guess we're lucky here in canada. i've never even heard of a 'topless only' strip club. all the ones i've been to were full on nude, full on alcohol and full on lap dances. they even had this thing were the girls practically sat on your face. put a toonie in your mouth, lay on stage, the girl sits on your face, then takes the toonie. all very unhygienic really. i don't know if they do that anymore, its been a number of years since i've been to one.

can you really blame the government for these kinds of bullshit laws though? no, not really. who are they trying to please? conservative ass old people or liberally stupid young people. for every law passed that is unnecessary its just another vote bought.

I don't know who they are trying to please here in Vegas.

We've went from "Sin City" to "Boring City".

And yeah, I would THINK the cops would have more important things to do than sit in strip clubs having girls dance for them, then at the end of the night forcing the girls to give back ALL the money that they made dancing for the undercover cops AND giving them each a $1400 ticket.

But if you could get away with sitting around drinking beer and having whores strip for you all night, and then get all your money back...you would too. lol

Fucking govt. and cops need to be reigned in a bit.

But right now the mood of the country seems to be full steam ahead on giving them MORE power. Hopefully it will swing back the other way in my lifetime.

"An assault firearm is defined as any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of offence with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock."

so... like an assault rifle. "expels single" = semi auto. Anything full auto is referred to as a machine gun. taken from state police website

granted I'm no gun nut so I could still be wrong, I am simply intrigued guns seem to be the easiest fucking thing to get in this country

Here is one for you...

In Cincinnati, Ohio the police set up elaborate stings for out-call strippers (not escorts), throw fake bachelor parties, and any girl who touches anyone at the party, be it to take a dollar with her tits or even sit in his lap, is arrested (after the party is over of course) for prostitution (misdemeanor) and her driver is arrested for being her pimp, which is a felony. However, no real acts of prostitution have taken place and the driver is literally just security or some dude helping her get from A to B.

They usually hit them with multiple counts, for each lap she sits in, so they end up having to plea out due to so much shit they throw at them. Everyone who has fought it in court has lost. I've seen several really good girls and their drivers get ruined over some bullshit like this. One girl lost her child over it. All because some group of adults decided another adult was a hooker if she was naked at sat on a grown man's lap during a bachelor party.

Meanwhile at the parties, the police are trying to grope all over the girls and pull them onto them so the girl falls on them and they get to charge her. It is entrapment at its finest, but these days they don't call it that, they are just doing their job.

#1 Google Result for "Assault Rifle"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

"granted I'm no gun nut so I could still be wrong"

Of course you're wrong.

FYI, YOU most likely know more about guns than the average police officer. That description may be a State law but it's not even on par with the previous Federal "Assault Weapons Ban."

State police website quoting the state law > Wikipedia

I'm sorry if you disagree with how the state defines an assault weapon. But the law is if its not an automatic weapon, it can be bought from a private party who just needs to confirm my state residency and doesn't know the buyer is a felon.

A semi automatic assault rifle just counts as a long rifle that's all. We are discussing laws here, not Internet definitions. To be fair it seems our laws are some of the mildest towards gun control out of any state.

People driving crack me up.

We have a parking lot here with two "circles". Seems "circles" are not common here in California. Why they decided to put in two of them in this one parking lot boggles my mind. Factor in we have Sun City across the street.... Provides constant laughter every time I have to drive through them.

Actually, what started this was your misuse of the word "Assault Rifle."

As far as the laws, according to your definition, a 7 shot 22 rifle is an assault rifle.

Why the hell am I even bothering with this conversation? You clearly know fuck all about gun laws other than what you read on the news and your own States website that has nothing to do with Federal law. On the other hand, I have a Type 7 FFL and Class 2 SOT. I'm sure you know more about these sort of things than I do.

I'm done here.

I'm not sure why you are bothering either. You are just stuck on the definition of assault rifle. Its like arguing over grammar on the internet and ignoring actually what is being said.

I was simply saying its easy as fuck to get guns with no oversight. I don't care about the assault rifle name or whatever, I could've just said any guns that aren't full auto.

also, your example is only correct if its designed to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock...

An assault firearm is defined as any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of offence with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock.


As someone with those qualifications, I would think you would want at least some minimum level for gun ownership versus just anything goes...

You guys can argue all you want, debate definitions, etc etc. Make no mistake about it, the AR15 is an assault rifle. The AR15 is the civilian version of the M16, and that is in fact an assault rifle.

It doesn't matter if the top is up or down, a convertible is in fact a convertible.

You're wrong, as usual.

No surprize there though....

I suppose you could have said that but then you would STILL be wrong. :1orglaugh

As far as the words you use not mattering, I suppose calling you a "child pornographer" is just as good as "pornographer." Right? Being that it's all the same and what not....

Ok sweet thread even more derailed into shit that doesn't matter.

An assault rifle can fire full automatic and are used by the military and an AR15 is a semi automatic and cannot fire full automatic and is for civilian use...thus the AR15 is not an assault rifle.

The cyclic rate of fire for the M-16 can be up to 950 rounds per minute where as the AR15 is something like 90 rounds per minute or so depending on how fast ones trigger finger is.

An assault weapon is a "political/media" term applied to certain semi automatic rifles because of cosmetics...period.

Does it really matter if a gun is automatic or not?

The 2nd amendment says that we are a free people and can own any gun we want. The govt. is nervous about that (as it should be with all the shit it pulls) and wants to make sure that we can't have them.

So Congress should repeal the 2nd amendment. Everything else is going to be justifiably ruled unconstitutional or such a small gesture that it won't really do anything except make anti-gun people feel good about themselves.

You have stated multiple times that Congress should repeal the 2nd amendment knowing that is not a possibility. Even the attempt to do so would make me and tens of millions of people an enemy of the state.

It's absolutely a possibility...not only that it's their duty to do IF the people of this country decide that it is what needs to be done.

That's why Congress has not only repealed amendments in the past...but added them as well. That's why they are called "amendments" to the Constitution. They amend the document.

I'm not sure that you and tens of millions of people would become "enemies of the state" at all. They already search us like criminals at airports, wiretap our phones, read our email, search our person, search our vehicles, etc., etc.

All those things were unheard of just a couple of decades ago. And people screamed bloody murder over it. But nobody did a thing. And let's face it, nobody will. Not you or tens of millions of others.

Look, there is an exact method that is laid out in the structure of our govt.
In order to have gun control they will have to repeal the 2nd amendment and replace it with another one.
They've done it before with other issues, and I'm sure they will do it again.

Anything else is infringing on our rights and freedom.

You do know what the requirements are don't you? Yes it has been done before but never to the original bill of rights. I think it would be a virtual impossibility to alter the original bill of rights.

I know it would make me an enemy of the state...end of story.

I agree that they probably don't have the balls to go after the 2nd amendment. Doesn't mean that they can't. Because they can. They just don't have the guts to.

And that's the point I'm trying to make.

This whole "gun control" b.s. has NOTHING to do with guns. It's just politicians trying to make you think they "care".

In reality the only thing they care about is power and money.

They know it's unconstitutional to try and take guns from Americans in any way. But they will keep fighting on BOTH sides to try and convince their constituents that they "care" about them.

Reality is IF they cared and really thought that guns were a problem, they would do what they are authorized to do.

But they won't.

That's all I'm trying to say. This is all a big farce to capture stupid people's attention and votes.

In the end, only the politicians win.

There are background checks in place now and the Supreme Court has ruled that back ground checks are within the constitution...there has been a previous 10 year ban on so called "assault weapons" and the Supreme Court has ruled that was within the constitution.

Now some want background checks to cover more sales than are currently covered and want another ban on so called "assault weapons". I don't have a real problem with either of these but the ban on "assault weapons" is nothing more than a feel good law as they are not anymore than a semi automatic rifle.

Assault weapons are used in less than one percent of all gun crimes and according to the FBI the previous ban had zero affect on gun crimes or the number of people killed.

You are right about politicians and as the song goes..."and the games people play now".

anyone wish to buy unchambered,com and push the right to carry unloaded perhaps? $250 single word domain name. Cheap. [email protected]

Interesting domain name...but no thanks.

Repeal the 2nd ammendment?

You're more likely to find out the moon actually is made of cheese than that occuring.

great.. how about I shoot a female cop doing an interracial anal gang bang then the cops can come after me for health violations :helpme

Hear...hear!

if everyone would just use guns that were available when the 2nd amendment was written...

http://vorderlader.sg1863-gross-bieb...steins_pis.jpg

I agree...and the reason is that the politicians calling for "gun control" don't believe it themselves and don't have the balls to actually do the one thing that they have constitutional power to do.

It's all just posturing and posing.

In the OP, he said " . If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.", thus making out that somehow your ability to own a weapon to protect your home and family should be tied to your ability to afford some special added fee as a barrier, and that the government should make that barrier harder to cross, so as to deny more people that right simply based on their income.

This was the same concept that brought us the "poll tax" making it harder for poor people to afford to vote. Make things artificially more expensive so that only the lowest income brackets are denied their rights, as if being more able to afford to have a right means that you will be more responsible with it.


.


.

says the guy lives in a mansion in panama. really the same thing could be said about any kind of insurance. auto, rental, etc. its just a talking point to say its a barrier to keep the poor out. its more about accountability. if something happens when using the gun, insurance will cover financial damages. if you have a criminal record or whatever reason there might be to refuse a person insurance or charge them much more its a way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. same way auto insurance skyrockets if you've been convicted of dui or whatever.

Getting insurance companies involved will help no one. They would collect premiums, package a bunch of policies together, sell them as a financial security product and when someone gets shot it would take the victim years to see pennies from the insurance companies (you think the mortgage crisis was bad)!

I have two of those, but remember that when the constitution was written, that's what the military was carrying too!