Gun Crime

[David Floyd]

That seems to be a sweeping generation. I posit that firearms are fundamentally different from other things you can own because they are expressedly designed to kill. There is no other purpose to firearms (a class of weapons) than to kill.

How is this relevant? If the Founders were concerned about this, they probably would have written something about it - yet they never did, not in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or any of their private writings.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Read the post that I put just before yours -- it explains why recreational items cannot be rightfully subsidized.

Read Wraith's earlier post--it explains why "rightfully subsidized" is a contradiction in terms.

[MrFun]

Ok, let's forget subsidizing military weapons and hardware for the middle class.

Whoever can afford to purchase military weapons and hardware have the right to own them -- whether they are in any military service is irrelevant.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Whoever can afford to purchase military weapons and hardware have the right to own them -- whether they are in any military service is irrelevant.

Works for me.

[David Floyd]

Whoever can afford to purchase military weapons and hardware have the right to own them -- whether they are in any military service is irrelevant.

No, everyone has the right - but not everyone has the ability.

[faded glory]

DF,

On the tanks. There is a guy off I-94 south into Chicago area who bought an Abrams, T-72, M4, T-55, M60 and a few others. He has them all pointing at the interstate


Anyway. You cant drive a tank on Public roads. Its against the law.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


Works for me.

Cool -- so that means that wealthy people like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and others can pratice their right to own tanks, military aircraft, artillery and other military weapons and hardware.

That means we agree with this hypothetical construct, so far??

[loinburger]

Originally posted by faded glory
Anyway. You cant drive a tank on Public roads. Its against the law.

I imagine they'd chew the hell out of the pavement.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Cool -- so that means that wealthy people like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and others can pratice their right to own tanks, military aircraft, artillery and other military weapons and hardware.

That means we agree with this hypothetical construct, so far??

Bloody hell, MrFun, of course I agree. I've said the same damn thing for about ten posts now.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by loinburger


I imagine they'd chew the hell out of the pavement.

Yup thats one reason.....Unless you get Rubber treads fitted. Even then; they add imense weight. There's still a Hazard. What if your tank gets into an accident; or I dont know. A lot of things could happen in a tank. You can exactly see the cars below too easily.

There is a guy in London who drives a self propelled mechanized Artilery piece (Abbot I think). I wonder if a brit has seen that guy. I saw it on the Travel Channel

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


Bloody hell, MrFun, of course I agree. I've said the same damn thing for about ten posts now.

Ok, ok -- I understand that you agree now. :

Now that we established that upper class people can pratice their right to own tanks, military aircraft, artillery and other military weapons and hardware, I'm trying to decide how to further elaborate on this hypothetical construct.

Unless you, or someone else have any ideas on expanding this argument.

NOTE: To simplify our discussion, let's use the words military weapons to include all the weapons I have mentioned, and others that were not mentioned. Only if clarification or a specific one is necessary then mention that type of military weapon.

[David Floyd]

Now that we established that upper class people can pratice their right to own tanks, military aircraft, artillery and other military weapons and hardware, I'm trying to decide how to further elaborate on this hypothetical construct.

BLOODY HELL! Anyone can, in theory, practice this right to buy a tank - but just like owning $1 million houses, not everyone can afford it!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Unless you, or someone else have any ideas on expanding this argument.

What argument? What in the world are you trying to prove here?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MrFun


Now that we established that upper class people can pratice their right to own tanks, military aircraft, artillery and other military weapons and hardware, I'm trying to decide how to further elaborate on this hypothetical construct.

.

So the rest of us would pretty much be defenseless in the face of a determined coalition of rich people. Say, isn't this pretty much how feudalism started? Only the rich could afford armor then too. Hmmmm, maybe we'd better think this issue over some more.

[David Floyd]

So the rest of us would pretty much be defenseless in the face of a determined coalition of rich people. Say, isn't this pretty much how feudalism started? Only the rich could afford armor then too. Hmmmm, maybe we'd better think this issue over some more.

Oh Jesus Christ. I really hope you aren't serious with that argument.