He doesn't like GUNS.

[james&olya 1,121]

point that khadaffi can try to buy one all he wants, he won't get one. no one wants to attach their country to his ownership.

So you do finally agree to at least some regulation of objects that can be used as weapons!

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

So you do finally agree to at least some regulation of objects that can be used as weapons!

again - sure, if you want to introduce the absurd into the conversation. i'd also agree that owning one's own battlestar or deathstar could constitute a weapon too.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You are wrong! Nukes may have many other 'uses'. It has been proposed to consider their use to deflect so called 'killer' asteroids if they threaten earth. They have been used for research and for demonstration purposes. So yes, they fit very well into that same spectrum of weapons that a gun fits into, those objects being defined as those having a principal purpose of killing.

I think that statement falls into the catagory of extreme hyperbole and it speaks for itself. I will repeat myself, you sure don't sound like someone with a "significant post doctoral degree".

[james&olya 1,121]

again - sure, if you want to introduce the absurd into the conversation. i'd also agree that owning one's own battlestar or deathstar could constitute a weapon too.

Of course it is an extreme example. But it still demonstrates a valid point, that at some level, some regulation of weaponry is very appropriate. I use this extreme example because some on here like to pretend that NO regulation of mere objects can ever be constitutionally allowed! If some people were not so dense on this issue it would not take such an extreme example to make them see that their arguments have fundamental flaws.

[Zero Sum 305]

were that in bold true, hunters would use assault rifles for hunting. which brings us to your first sentence - that is true.

"military style" firearms are designed to be like a timex watch - take a licking and keep on ticking. rough use, not the most careful of handling by it's user, it can take far more abuse than the average hunting rifle. the trade off is - they are quite often not as accurate as hunting rifles. i personally can hit pie plates well past 300 meters with my hunting rifles - but won't even bother trying that with a military grade rifle.

now ask yourself this - which is really more dangerous: your average hunting rifle, or a military grade rifle?

i'd choose the first one.

Excellent points, but at this point in the evolution of the thread I am sure someone may have pointed out (if not, then I am doing so now) that accuracy in a public space where the firing range is much less than that firing distance probably doesn't matter as much as, say, the frequency of firing that weapon which can pack in more bullets over a slower one- therefore increasing the probability of hitting targets inside that area.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Of course it is an extreme example. But it still demonstrates a valid point, that at some level, some regulation of weaponry is very appropriate. I use this extreme example because some on here like to pretend that NO regulation of mere objects can ever be constitutionally allowed! If some people were not so dense on this issue it would not take such an extreme example to make them see that their arguments have fundamental flaws.

yet neither named example is a usc so it's pretty silly to introduce them in a topic on gun ownership for usc's, eh?

[Zero Sum 305]

Not all gun enthusiasts are "nuts", some of us actually support reasonable regulations.

Like testing against ownership by crazies.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Excellent points, but at this point in the evolution of the thread I am sure someone may have pointed out (if not, then I am doing so now) that accuracy in a public space where the firing range is much less than that firing distance probably doesn't matter as much as, say, the frequency of firing that weapon which can pack in more bullets over a slower one- therefore increasing the probability of hitting targets inside that area.

range is much less, higher quantity of projectiles - then we need to ban the 12 gauge shotgun!

[Zero Sum 305]

the place i cited above, you can't even have one in your own house. so yeah, it is different, regardless of what you're claiming.

Its legal here.

[Zero Sum 305]

range is much less, higher quantity of projectiles - then we need to ban the 12 gauge shotgun!

With a lack of accuracy at high firing rate comes a spraying effect with the projectiles that can hit more victims in whatever trajectory the bullets take. Due to the ammo, there's little to compare to a 12-gauge at longer ranges, and I'd dare say that at a shorter range the ballistics would still be unable to hit the same targets as something that 'sprays' more in a more rapid succession with the same probability.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Its legal here.

Starting today, Chicagoans can legally keep handguns in their homes. July 12, 2010 2:36

The new ordinance only allows guns to be kept inside homes--so having a weapon in a resident's garage or back porch is considered illegal.

link

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun.

link

i guess once you get it home, it's like hotel california - it can check in, but it can't ever check out

With a lack of accuracy at high firing rate comes a spraying effect with the projectiles that can hit more victims in whatever trajectory the bullets take. Due to the ammo, there's little to compare to a 12-gauge at longer ranges, and I'd dare say that at a shorter range the ballistics would still be unable to hit the same targets as something that 'sprays' more in a more rapid succession with the same probability.

i'm not real sure what you're trying to say here.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Starting today, Chicagoans can legally keep handguns in their homes. July 12, 2010 2:36

The new ordinance only allows guns to be kept inside homes--so having a weapon in a resident's garage or back porch is considered illegal.

link

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun.

link

i guess once you get it home, it's like hotel california - it can check in, but it can't ever check out

It is a catch 22. It is illegal to take the gun into Chicago but it is legal to have it in the home. I guess the only way to do it legaly is build one yourself.

[Zero Sum 305]

Starting today, Chicagoans can legally keep handguns in their homes. July 12, 2010 2:36

The new ordinance only allows guns to be kept inside homes--so having a weapon in a resident's garage or back porch is considered illegal.

link

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun.

link

i guess once you get it home, it's like hotel california - it can check in, but it can't ever check out

i'm not real sure what you're trying to say here.

I am ready to purchase a piece to be legally stored at home. From what my police friends have informed me, standing orders for officers that 'catch' a resident of the city with a piece being transported home is to produce proof of ownership and the clearance certificate issued by CPD in addition to the IL FOID. And then all is good.

As for porches and garages... I guess you have to think about what a Chicago garage is like. Easy to break into.

To address the other comment, think about how far 12-gauge shot travels, the angle at which it exits a barrel, and how many rounds can be fired in succession. You could be an ace and still not hit as many people in a relatively small area as with a weapon with a higher rate of firing.

It is a catch 22. It is illegal to take the gun into Chicago but it is legal to have it in the home. I guess the only way to do it legaly is build one yourself.

From the second link:

"To transport a gun, it will have to be "broken down," not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case."

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You can still have loaded "antique" firearms in Chicago anywhere I think. I just discovered a store that sells them by me btw.

[SMOKE 1,426]

That is fine, I don't see how it would skew my point of view on illegal immigration, or anyone on this board for that matter. It is beyond comprehension how some on these boards suggest that anyone on VJ are in support of illegal immigration. Seriously, how can you make that assertion knowing full well that everyone here bears some level of animosity towards it because of their own experiences with LEGAL immigration? At best, you are being disingenuous.

You might want to check the Terms of Service of VJ again Smoke. You're no newb, so you should know that it is agains the TOS to misquote or misconstrue what someone has said. I have no qualms with you quoting what I said, but at least be honest about it.

too funny. you're telling me what violates the TOS.

TOS violation suspension scoreboard: SMOKE 0.. Rob ??. idk the number but i'm betting its double digits.

many won't even acknowledge the context or intent behind the amendment initially. How are you supposed to have an honest debate if one side won't even acknowledge the premise?

what exactly would i be misquoting or misconstruing, if i threw the above up during a debate about constitutional amendments with you & i felt you were failing to consider the context or intent?

btw: i never said you supported anything. you may have misread something. i'm sure you wouldn't misquote or misconstrue something another said.