"Strict" Laws, Do They Effect Your Availability?

During a recent discussion, I posited that the US ban on assault weapons having an expiration date was instituted by Congress members being paid by lobbyists from the manufacturer, the NRA, and other sources of wealth to ensure that such an obviously beneficial-to-the-public law didn't stay permanently on the books, to which another responded "No, That Couldn't Possibly Be So"...

... My point being, we don't have limitations on child pornography, we don't have expiration dates on controlled substance laws, who else could possibly be behind such a stupid idea (that a law would fade out) except those who stand to profit from such a law expiring? To me, it seems like common sense that the folks who stand to profit from assault weapons being sold HAD to be the ones who ensured that such a law would expire by paying those who word, review, and pass said law into being through "contributions". Also, though it would make it less easy to get them and I am all-for THAT (anything preventative is better than nothing at all), if people WANT them, they will find a way to GET them.

Am I right?

No matter where you call "home", do laws prevent you or those you know from obtaining things you really want to get your hands on?

This can be something as "innocent" as a video game (Australians, did your formerly-strict laws on game content prevent you from playing banned games?), blue jeans, or electronics... To things as universally egregious as an assault rifle or dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine, do strict laws make things any more difficult to find in your country/ city/ community?

I think we all agree that automatic weapons aren't usually built for hunting anything but a human being, yet there are literally MILLIONS of them on the planet due to arms manufacturers shipping them to conflict areas for use by various military... A percentage of those arms fall off a truck, and into the hands of black-market dealers, and they can find there way into anyone's hands, who wants to pay the toll. Frank Lucas has stated that his heroin empire was supplied by the contacts he established in the military and their presence in South-East Asia during the 1970s... Cocaine for arms during the Reagan administration by the CIA is also well-documented, fueling the rise of Crack in the African-American community during the 1980s. Availability was enhanced by the very government sworn to protect it's citizens from such things...

... Are automatic weapons any different?

Do laws make things any harder to get, in your experience?

Discuss.

Please answer honestly, and as always - Thanks for popping in to contribute!

:)

During a recent discussion, I posited that the US ban on assault weapons having an expiration date was instituted by Congress members being paid by lobbyists from the manufacturer, the NRA, and other sources of wealth to ensure that such an obviously beneficial-to-the-public law didn't stay permanently on the books, to which another responded "No, That Couldn't Possibly Be So"...

... My point being, we don't have limitations on child pornography, we don't have expiration dates on controlled substance laws, who else could possibly be behind such a stupid idea (that a law would fade out) except those who stand to profit from such a law expiring? To me, it seems like common sense that the folks who stand to profit from assault weapons being sold HAD to be the ones who ensured that such a law would expire by paying those who word, review, and pass said law into being through "contributions". Also, though it would make it less easy to get them and I am all-for THAT (anything preventative is better than nothing at all), if people WANT them, they will find a way to GET them.

Am I right?

No matter where you call "home", do laws prevent you or those you know from obtaining things you really want to get your hands on?

This can be something as "innocent" as a video game (Australians, did your formerly-strict laws on game content prevent you from playing banned games?), blue jeans, or electronics... To things as universally egregious as an assault rifle or dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine, do strict laws make things any more difficult to find in your country/ city/ community?

I think we all agree that automatic weapons aren't usually built for hunting anything but a human being, yet there are literally MILLIONS of them on the planet due to arms manufacturers shipping them to conflict areas for use by various military... A percentage of those arms fall off a truck, and into the hands of black-market dealers, and they can find there way into anyone's hands, who wants to pay the toll. Frank Lucas has stated that his heroin empire was supplied by the contacts he established in the military and their presence in South-East Asia during the 1970s... Cocaine for arms during the Reagan administration by the CIA is also well-documented, fueling the rise of Crack in the African-American community during the 1980s. Availability was enhanced by the very government sworn to protect it's citizens from such things...

... Are automatic weapons any different?

Do laws make things any harder to get, in your experience?

Discuss.

Please answer honestly, and as always - Thanks for popping in to contribute!

:)

MonkeySpot

If crazy people want to do something/get something they will do it regardless of the laws. Punishing the law abiding citizens with laws is just stupid. They're plenty of people who own automatic weapons legally and who use them safely.

There are plenty of laws on drugs but I still get pretty much anyone I want easily. Weed, coke, LSD, shrooms you name it. Its all still accesible.

Here's my 2 cents on the whole guns ban thing.

No matter how illegal it is to have something, people will still find a way to get it. I mean, look at drug addicts. They can make meth, obtain herion, and other mind altering substances without any problems.

Look at sawed off shtoguns. Just go down to the store, buy a double barreled shotgun, saw off the barrel and viola! You now have an illegal weapon.

Many people can alter a weapon to be automatic if they wish to do so too. Just because legal stores cannot sell automatic guns, doesn't mean people don't know how to make them automatic.

No matter how much politicians politicise the subject, no matter how "strict" laws are against something, no matter what, people will do what they want.

We are targeting the wrong thing here. Guns do kill people, if they are used in that fashion. But the second admendment allows the ownage of firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and corruption, not hunting deer. Politicians should be the last people we listen to when it comes to banning guns.

The targets of the shootings and what not should be the people who use the guns wrongly, not guns themselves. I mean what's stopping a resturaunt chef from going out and killing 5-6 people with dual sharp azz carving knives? Timothy McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb to kill his victims.....there are many ways to kill people, not just guns.

Icy roads cause car wreck, should we ban ice?

During a recent discussion, I posited that the US ban on assault weapons having an expiration date was instituted by Congress members being paid by lobbyists from the manufacturer, the NRA, and other sources of wealth to ensure that such an obviously beneficial-to-the-public law didn't stay permanently on the books, to which another responded "No, That Couldn't Possibly Be So"...

... My point being, we don't have limitations on child pornography, we don't have expiration dates on controlled substance laws, who else could possibly be behind such a stupid idea (that a law would fade out) except those who stand to profit from such a law expiring? To me, it seems like common sense that the folks who stand to profit from assault weapons being sold HAD to be the ones who ensured that such a law would expire by paying those who word, review, and pass said law into being through "contributions". Also, though it would make it less easy to get them and I am all-for THAT (anything preventative is better than nothing at all), if people WANT them, they will find a way to GET them.

Am I right?

No matter where you call "home", do laws prevent you or those you know from obtaining things you really want to get your hands on?

This can be something as "innocent" as a video game (Australians, did your formerly-strict laws on game content prevent you from playing banned games?), blue jeans, or electronics... To things as universally egregious as an assault rifle or dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine, do strict laws make things any more difficult to find in your country/ city/ community?

I think we all agree that automatic weapons aren't usually built for hunting anything but a human being, yet there are literally MILLIONS of them on the planet due to arms manufacturers shipping them to conflict areas for use by various military... A percentage of those arms fall off a truck, and into the hands of black-market dealers, and they can find there way into anyone's hands, who wants to pay the toll. Frank Lucas has stated that his heroin empire was supplied by the contacts he established in the military and their presence in South-East Asia during the 1970s... Cocaine for arms during the Reagan administration by the CIA is also well-documented, fueling the rise of Crack in the African-American community during the 1980s. Availability was enhanced by the very government sworn to protect it's citizens from such things...

... Are automatic weapons any different?

Do laws make things any harder to get, in your experience?

Discuss.

Please answer honestly, and as always - Thanks for popping in to contribute!

:)

MonkeySpot

Icy roads cause car wreck, should we ban ice?

ristactionjakso

And of course we shouldn't ban ice since ice is really frozen water and water is something necessary for life.

Why do people think guns will be just as easy to obtain just because drugs are? This is incredibly stupid when drugs are so easy to make in comparison, it's not the same as stealing some guns that fall off a truck every once in awhile. Also these deranged people that do these mass shootings are usually more socially inept which would make the likely hood of them having connections to get a gun off the black market that much more unlikely to happen.

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Icy roads cause car wreck, should we ban ice?

whipassmt

And of course we shouldn't ban ice since ice is really frozen water and water is something necessary for life.

Why do people think guns will be just as easy to obtain just because drugs are? This is incredibly stupid when drugs are so easy to make in comparison, it's not the same as stealing some guns that fall off a truck every once in awhile. Also these deranged people that do these mass shootings are usually more socially inept which would make the likely hood of them having connections to get a gun off the black market that much more unlikely to happen.

Devil-Itachi