Your Qna     New Questions     About Qna
EQNA is a growing interactive people-knowledge network with more than 120,000 questions and 450,000 answers from over 55,000 members worldwide. With all friendly functions, EQNA will be a fun place to join, share and discover knowledge, an open net space allowing you to connect with other people having specialized knowledge or ones with same interests to yours. EQNA login features secured logins using Twitter and Facebook enable you to place questions without sharing your personal information to us. Lets get out and join our community today!
Ask a Question

FACT: The State must have the de facto monopoly on the production and use of mass killings weapons..

and to say the opposite is to say that, "everyone desires to kill everyone, and there are numerous suppliers supplying that demand". The absurdities fallacies and impossibilities of the second option, "competing", are obvious and hence the government must have monopoly on the production and use of mass killings weapons necessarily. We now ask, "who is terrorizing who"?

You didn't even have the decency to vote for an answer?? Nice..


Chris, I think he voted for "No Good Answers", because nobody agreed with him.


I have voted, and I always vote. Hongkong, I voted no good answer, because there were none, especially yours.
Chris, go and play elsewhere, will you? I have had enough of time wasters and I will report you if you don't mind your manners, or do you prefer I return the favor and bash you back, after all bashing is so easy for those who are lazy to acquire knowledge, but then I will lower my standard to yours.


First, your Fact is an assumption. Second you try to make it fact by a second assumption.

For normal individuals, killing is a choice, not a desire. Thus, the second assumption is absurd to even contemplate.

As for your first assumption, mass killing weapons are around us all the time. Look at the volatility of fertilizer (used in the Oklahoma City Bombing); Or look at the chemical companies and the hazardous materials they use daily (just look at Bhopal India Disaster that happened at a Union Carbide plant that killed between 2,500 and 5,000 people or the plot that was foiled in Austria were ordinary chemicals had been stock piled).

The two examples above are ordinary easily obtained items that are produced by companies that compete. Of course, the Government has regulations in place to control these things, but they do not own them. Thus, your first assumption is obviously wrong.


Hello, my dear respected friend, and thank you for your answer. As you might know, in economy, all things are either abundant or scarce, [this is a fact, for my purpose I am going to call it fact 1]. The only thing that is in abundant in economy is "air", for the obvious reasons, [this is fact 2]. All other things are scarce and subject to the mechanism of demand and supply, [fact 3]. We the populace demand and those who supply are: 1- The Government. 2- Landowners. 3- Entrepreneurs, [fact 4]. Those who supply us have this privilege by the virtue of their access to the scarce resources, [fact5]. You can not manufacture a good requiring access to scarce resources from already manufactured goods in the market, say for example explosives, and you might ask why, if you have not seen the reason from the above [5 facts] already. Because that will make explosives an abundant good not requiring an access to scarce resources, contrary to [fact 1,2,3,4,5].

Now, my dear respected citizen, I would not make an assumption about something like this, nor I am accusing those in power of treason, but I know for fact it is also possible for the apparatus of government to be hijacked by a very powerful and ambitious people, and I need not give historical examples, for I know, my dear respected citizen, you can think of many.
I am only replying to you and may be HongK, because I know you are serious, sharp minded, courteous and above all "just and good citizens who cherish the gifts of the forefathers of Life, Property, and Liberty. Make no mistake, these gifts are at great peril, and not from a fanatical idiots but from a dark and sinister force. I will not for one minute pretend to know what this dark force is, because I don't, but it exists and it is utilizing the power and the apparatus of government. Peace and respect my dear fellow citizen.


Justicelover, Thank you for clarifying your points. As an individual with a degree in accounting and a degree in Business (yes, they are two separate degrees a BAC & a BBA) I have had many hours of economics, both required and taken to fill optional credits. I fully understand the idea of scarce resource and abundant recourses.

Economics is defined as the best way to distribute limited resources that are limited only in the aspect of unlimited wants. However, as you may know, this is a required assumption only for basic economics in helping to explain supply and demand.

This assumption becomes a burden when other factors of society are thrown into the mix, because not all wants are unlimited.

In your example above, not all person have a want for murder, death and destruction based on moral, religious, and social behaviors. This in itself makes the unlimited want theory mute, because as we know there are limits on wants.

Other examples of limits on wants could be an over whelming, since for survival. Until basic needs are met, wants stay at this basic level. For example, if you are starving, your mind is tied up looking to fulfill this basic need and wants above that are meaningless.

Given this, common since tells us that there are more abundant resources then just air, because wants are limited either from our personal morals and values or limited due to our environment, necessity, or lack of technology (i.e. 1,000 years ago there were no wants for a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti).

In this, it can be seen that wants can be limited. However, this means that abundance (in the long run) causes a decrease in price and thus, becomes a danger to those who control the resources. This means that the resources must become scarce (through control) for money to be made at an optimal point, since the scarcity drives price up (think about oil).

In a democratic society, the Government i


hi, well, my friend, you seem to have made a new discovery in economics, that is your say that want is limited by religious, moral and social values. "Want" here is defined by utility. Self defense which is the killing of others is a need which is want, because every need is a want but not every want is a need, hence your confusion. Now, there isn't any contradiction between this want and religious,moral and social values. This want is either abundant or scarce. If it is abundant that means that everyone has access to mass murder weapons, just like air. Since we know that is not possible then self defense weapons must be subject to the availability of rare resources. Self defense is the job of the State because it is, its primary job. I can't see why anyone would argue about a clear cut fact like this?
Please the following classic:


The Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth
Ecclesiastical and Civil
By Thomas Hobbes, Published April 1651
Chapter thirteen: Of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery
(¶) Paragraph numbers added to assist referencing
(¶ 13.1) Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.
(¶ 13.2) And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhat else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one's own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance. But this proveth rather that men


LOL! Econmics has come a long way since 1651.


Yes, JusticeLover likes to post old data and claim it is the last word. Hence the text of a law as passed in 1968 is gospel...

JL, you said something I would like to address: "Self defense is the job of the State because it is, its primary job. I can't see why anyone would argue about a clear cut fact like this?" - I would argue with this, absolutely, and observe that it is not a clear cut fact at all, but rather an opinion that you hold. Self-defense is not only every person's right, it is every person's responsibility. Hence the phrase SELF-defense. The state is not myself, so if it defended me from a murderer, then that would not be self-defense... it is the defense of another. This is basic stuff, dude.

In order for something to be considered my self-defense, the threat has to be directed at ME... and hence the state cannot be responsible for my own self-defense. That's MY job.

Some definitions do extend the term self-defense to include relatives, it is true, but it still doesn't apply to the State... unless you are claiming that the State is me or that I'm a close relative to it. Nope, it doesn't wash.

You also said: "Self defense which is the killing of others..." - Completely incorrect. Self-defense can entail the killing of the attacker, but much more commonly it is accomplished by merely fighting back or even just brandishing a weapon to discourage the attacker. Self defense is protecting yourself from an attacker.

Or, as Webster's defines it, "the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative". See? They don't even hint that killing is necessary.

I will agree that guns are particularly useful for self-defense. But since "the state" is highly unlikely to be there when the armed criminal attacks me seeking to do me bodily injury, an armed state doesn't do me any immediate good. The gun in my holster, the kn


It shows that you like fishing in murky waters. Self defense can be of two kinds:

1-Individual self defense.

2- The State self defense from another State's aggression.

Is it clear for you now, or perhaps it was in the first please?


But is a mugger assaulting me, or a group of thugs bursting into my home aggression from another State? No, it isn't. Even street gangs don't constitute another State. So defending me from criminals isn't the job of the state, it's my job.

What you're trying to say is that it's the job of the State to defend the soveriegnty of this country from outside attacks. Yes, I'll agree with that. But that isn't a defense of little old me, that's a defense of the nation... of which I happen to be a part.


...and look where the topic ended in this discussion from it's humble beginnings. When the pot does begin to boil dry, debate turns into yet another emotion that needs the unfailing support of a law to hold it up.
Coincidentally, was the topic of "mass killings weapons" and who has supreme power ever answered? I think I lost where the beginning tied in to the ending of this debate directly after litigation in the 1600s was presented.


To HongKong: Our discussion on self defense was in the context of the State's role and you brought the individual right to self defense trying to confuse the issue. Secondly, you say, and I quote: "So defending me from criminals isn't the job of the state, it's my job". End of quote. So, the entire criminal justice system in your opinion is complete waste of time, the same way you think that the 500 billions spent on national defense is complete waste of time because everyone has the ability to mass killings. My, God, what plant do you live on?


To Michelle: Thank you for your kind intervention, but my emotions are calm and collected. As for the way I quote the classical work of Sir Thomas Hobbs, because if you study political science you learn it along with other classics who discussed the issue of the State, its nature, objectives and the means available to it which makes it unique from other social organizations. There is a consensus among political scientists that the State has many ends and objectives which can be infinite but what is unique about it is the mean that is available to it, and that is the production and use of mass killings weapons. In the old days this was in the form of raising an army, but since the discovery and use of the black gold (no, not oil, but the gunpowder) and the subsequent discovery of deadlier explosives, this was restricted to the acquisition, control and monopoly of these very rare raw materials required for the manufacturing of these weapons. But we have been brainwashed into believing that you and I if we want could manufacture weapons of mass destruction in our backyard from materials abundantly found in your local store. Why spread this fairy tales is the question?


Your statement and question do not beg an answer, its more of a rant. What do you want to know?


Rant, no. Fact, yes. Reread.


dont worry he is joking


No, I am not, nor are you, because I know that you know. Why don't you let everyone read for themselves, or are you trying to redirect their thinking? what an insult.


What is your question to us? What do you want us to say??


Hello Chris, I am beginning to suspect he has no real agenda except to stir things up. Check this out.​2D9F&ctx=%2fBrowse.aspx%3ffilter%3d2
Same question, just worded different.


Ahhh OK thanks


To Chirs: my question is clear enough I think, and if you don't understand it or have a positive contribution to make, please move to another topic where you can. Thank you.

To MamaV: My question that you refer to in the link below was asked from a Political science perspective and my above question is from an Economic perspective, and together they compound my argument very well. It is a standard practice in Social Sciences to use many evidence to illustrate the same point. Sir, I find it highly offensive your tone that I "stir things up". It is either you refute my argument using logical methods or you can go to another question where you can put your time to a good use. Thank you.


Hello Chris, I am beginning to suspect he has no real agenda except to stir things up. Check this out.​​2D9F&ctx=%2fBrowse.aspx%3ffilter%3d2


Justice, My comment, "to stir things up" was not meant to insult you or to be rude. If that is the way you took it then please accept my apologies. I like debate just as much as the next person as long as it is done with civility. Which you are doing. Also just a gentle reminder that this is a PUBLIC forum and there are going to be other users who disagree with your point of view. I fully respect your right to your opinions and your point of view. I hope that you do the same with me and with all users. Not agreeing with someone is not a sign of disrespect, it is simply just another point of view or opinion. This is a world wide web site and there are people on here from all walks of life from all over the planet. Logic like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. May I also respectively suggest that you Ask your question first, and then make your supporting statements, instead of making a statement and asking your question at the end. This well help to cause less confusion to the community as to what it is you are actually asking. I am looking forward to more of your questions as they are well thought out and interesting.


To MamaV: I am fully aware that we all hold different views and hence this forum in order to exchange these views through constructive debate and criticism. What I strongly object to is destructive discussions which rely on "Ad Hominem" and ridicule instead of using calm and logical refutations.

As for your advice about the wordings of my question, I appreciate your feedback and I shall be putting into practice. Thank you.


not at all in all...........something agree with Chris Wagoner........maybe you are joking


No, my friend I am dead serious. Reread.


Quote:"Everyone desires to kill everyone". Nope sorry, I do not desire to kill anyone at all.
Quote: "The Government must have a monopoly on the production and use mass killings weapons necessarily" What government are you talking about???

Hai Au Lavoie:

Big Brother needs to control weapons of mass destruction! In this way the people of that State remain proper work-slaves to the State. How do you like the idea of going to HELL, merely for paying taxes to support that country(U.S.A.). By the way; there is no law anywhere that requires income tax! Have a nice day you robot droans of the masses; a.k.a. taxpayers whom are on a one-way trip to hell for supporting the current regime!


It is called the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of these United States.


But the state does not have this. A "mass killing weapon" could be a machine gun or a few sticks of dynamite. These are legal for private citizens to own. As to manufacture, many munitions are produced by private companies and sold to the government.

Looking back, the history of the US does not agree with you, either. When the country was founded, private individuals owned and operated ships of war. Heck, the US even issued letters of marque and reprisal

So I disagree with your "fact". In fact, contrary to what you have stated, the state cannot possess any power that the citizens themselves do not have. (grin) How can we collectively grant to government powers that none of us have in the first place?


Please read the following link, you will find it a correction to your view that "mass killing weapons are available in the market".

Definition of assault weapon
Note: there are differing definitions of 'assault weapon' that are listed at Assault weapon. This page refers to the usage in the United States under the previous and proposed assault weapon bans.

A semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.

An Intratec TEC-9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol version of an assault weapon.
The term "assault weapon" in the context of civilian rifles has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann. The term assault weapon refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons. By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender,


I have no idea what you are trying to prove here, but you didn't succeed. Look, a friend of mine owns two FULLY-AUTOMATIC weapons, and I'm interested in purchasing an H&K MP-5 for myself. Not semi-auto, but fully auto. It's quite legal, so long as I jump through the correct beuracratic hoops.

I can puchase gunpowder of several different types... and gunpowder could easily be used to build explosive devices. Dynamite is also available.

Sure, I can't buy a grenade or a bazooka, but there are MANY types of weapons I can get that are capable of "mass killings". For you to argue that they aren't available is simply self-induced blindness.


I am afraid to tell your friend is lying to you. The law is quite clear as you can read for yourself. In fact ten years ago, the government banned even-automatic weapons, let alone Fully-Automatic. What I am trying to prove is self-evident, don't you think so? By the way, can you not debate without been discourteous? I have not said a bad word to you, but yet you are bend on insulting me, why?

Assault Weapons Ban
Main article: Federal assault weapons ban (USA)
Title XI, subtitle A, known as the Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, outlawed the manufacture of any semiautomatic rifle that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, AND which has two or more of the following features:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A flash suppressor
A grenade launcher
A bayonet lug
This section took effect September 13, 1994, and expired automatically through a sunset provision on September 13, 2004.
The National Rifle Association argued that the ban violated the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. (See Firearm case law).
It must be noted that there is a distinct difference between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle". In brief, an assault rifle is a military shoulder-fired rifle that is designed as a compromise between the long-range (up to 500m/550 yards) accuracy of an high-powered single-shot service rifle such as the Mauser K98 or M1 Garand with the close-quarters (<100m/110 yards) fully-automatic firepower of a pistol-ammunition-shooting submachine gun such as the Tommy Gun or Uzi. These firearms fire ammunition midrange between the two extremes, such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO or the 7.62x39mm Russian, and are capable of fully-automatic fire.
The term "assault weapon" is commonly (albeit incorrectly) applied to firearms that contain certain capabilities that are military in origin, such as large-capacity magazines, bayonet mounting hardwa


Assault weapon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The term Assault weapon is derived from the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle", which is a particular class of intermediate-powered, fully-automatic light firearms like the AK-47 and M16. Assault Weapon then, is a broadening of the term assault rifle, applied to weapons which are not strictly rifles, such as pistols and shotguns. Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.
There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapon in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the US was first codified by the language defining semi-automatic rifles with certain characteristics in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. See the U.S. Code of 2004 section on firearms.[1]
In United States military parlance an assault weapon refers to weapons designed for and used in assault operations. Current examples


Bringing the "assault weapons ban" into a discussion on fully auto weapons is misleading, as the ban only addressed SEMI-AUTO weapons. No fully auto weapons were banned by that bill. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the assault weapon ban expired in 2004. It died. It is no more. It shuffled off this mortal coil. It is deceased. And, to the best of my knowledge, a new ban has not been passed.

And if you do a little real research, you'll find that it is quite legal to own and fire fully-automatic weapons.

Get your terms straight, research the ACTUAL laws, and stop confusing semi-automatic weapons with fully-automatic weapons... BOTH of which are fully legal to own and fire.


Just for you, JL, I re-read my replies to you. The closest thing I've found to an insult was: "For you to argue that they aren't available is simply self-induced blindness.". Not very close to an insult at all, really. More like an observation.

My friend did not lie to me, he owns the fully-automatic weapons in question. I have seen them, and he has fired them in my presence at a firing range.

I do believe that you need to understand the laws a little better, because they don't say what you think they say.


Not at all. I will put a challange for you. Since you are saying it is legal(what a lot of rubbish) why don't you ask your friend to publish his name and address along with the name of the legal shop where he purchased his alleaged legal weapon. Not in a million years, because they don't exist. It is something you invented trying to win the argument. Look, it is not about your pride, it is about loosing your freedom, property and life in the pretext that everyone can initiate and sustain mass killings.


JUST FOR YOU. It is not me who needs to read the law. Please read on:
Automatic firearm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Automatic weapons)
Jump to: navigation, search

M2 Browning machine gun
An automatic firearm is a firearm that automatically extracts and ejects the fired cartridge case, and loads a new case, usually through the energy of the fired round. The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per pull of the trigger, or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition as long as the trigger (or other activating device) is pressed or until the ammunition is exhausted. "Automatic pistol" or "automatic shotgun" generally refers to a semi-automatic design, while "automatic rifle" more often means a fully automatic or selective fire design.
Fully automatic weapons tend to be restricted to military and police organizations in most developed countries. In the United States, machine guns registered after 1986 have been off the public market since the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. See Gun politics for more information.
Fully automatic firearms are covered in these articles:
Machine gun
General purpose machine gun
Heavy machine gun
Light machine gun
Medium machine gun
Squad automatic weapon
Submachine gun
Assault rifle
Automatic rifle
Machine pistol
Other similar designs not usually classified as automatic firearms are:
Autocannon, which are 20 mm in bore diameter or larger and thus considered cannons, not small arms.
Gatling guns, multi-barrelled bolt-action designs, often used with external power supplies to generate rates of fire higher than automatic firearms.
Metal Storm, an electrically fired system that uses the same principle as Roman candle fireworks.
Similar in appearance but not able to f


The law as it was enacted by the Senate.



1968? You're basing all of your arguments on the text of a law as passed in 1968 and that has been modified many times since then? Geeze, dude, read a little MORE of the law.

As to is it legal, do a search online to find automatic weapons (or machine guns) for sale. You'll find lots of places selling them. Here are a few.

I'm not going to chase down the actual text of the law, but know that posting a 40 year old law is insufficient to prove your point, as the law TODAY doesn't look like that anymore. It's been modified repeatedly. Bringing the now defunct "Assault Weapons Ban" into the discussion on fully automatic weapons doesn't bolster your case as someone who is knowledgable on the law.

It IS legal to own machine guns if you have the proper license (class 3). I've posted numerous sites that said that, and two that actually sell the weapons. I'm not sure what else you want, but as far as I'm concerned I have proven my point. Have a pleasant week.


BTW, relying on Wikkipedia for information on legal issues probably isn't the smartest thing someone has ever done.


First of all, allow me to say that there is nothing I abhor more than making ambiguous statements to mislead the public.

Secondly, the link with the 1968 firearms law is from ATA website, which incidentally they will be more than happy to settle this issue between us, that is if are willing to come forward with the details of your identity which I doubt it you will, because what you are claiming is a federal offence.

Thirdly, you claimed that fully automatic weapons are readily available from all gun stores, and I challenged you to name one
store, but instead you post to me a website which sells guns to other dealers who supply the law enforcement forces and also sell "automatic pistols, shotgun" weapons. These, although the public call them fully automatic weapons, they are not, as the term is reserved for "automatic rifles".

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (also known as GCA or GCA68, and codified as Chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code) is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

Please read the last four lines to confirm my point.

It seems to me that you didn't read what I POSTED for your benefit above, or you read it but you chose to ignore it. Anyway here it is again:

M2 Browning machine gun
An automatic firearm is a firearm that automatically extracts and ejects the fired cartridge case, and loads a new case, usually through the energy of the fired round. The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per pull of the trigger, or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition as long as the trigger (or other a


I think I see the basis of your misconceptions. You said the sites I linked to sell full auto to "other dealers". If, by a "dealer", you mean someone who has a class 3 license, then you are correct. But if you, JL, have no criminal convictions and a clean psychiatric record, then you can fill out the paperwork, pay the taxes, and obtain a class 3 license as well. Then you, a private citizen with a class 3 license, can purchase a fully automatic weapon. You're not a "dealer"... though you COULD be if you wanted to start a business at that point.

If you want to own a H&K MP5, which is a fully automatic weapon, you can do so. Just get your class 3 license and start shopping. Call your local gun shop and ask them the law. Write an email to the atf and ask them if it is legal to own a fully automatic weapon. It is obvious that you won't be convinced by anything I say. You've formulated your little thesis, and anything that challenges that thesis must be wrong. Not scientific, but very human.

I am very clear on what a fully automatic weapon is, and that is what I've been discussing. I am not using any ambiguity, and have never mentioned automatic pistols or shotguns. If I remember correctly, you brought up the "Assault Weapons Ban"... which applies only to semi-automatic weapons. That law banned no fully automatic weapons, yet for a few posts it was the center of your argument.

And one final note. You are, of course, free to post as you feel fit. But I would like to mention that posting lengthy article in their entirety is very wasteful of space, and makes it a little more difficult to follow the discussion. I usually quote relevant and important excerpts and then post a link to the page.


I asked you two things, which you failed to supply to support you argument: [1] The names of gun stores where they sell fully automatic weapons, especially where your "friend" got his.
[2] Your name and your friend's name and addresses(you can email them to me).
I doubt it you will do that in a million years, because what you claiming is not true.

As for posting lengthy articles, I say, only those with weak aptitude will complain from that, and of course you are not, so stop complaining and get reading, because everything I posted is absolutely relevant to our discussion. Over and Out, I have had enough of this. If you don't supply my above demands don't bother to say anything because neither I nor anyone else will put credit to them. Have a nice day firing your illusionary fully automatic weapon, LOL.


World history shows through out time regardless of race of culture, somebody is always looking to be in control. Weather of its own people or a large area. Genghis Kahn, Attila the hun, Hitler, Ancient Egypt, Shaka Zulu, Stalin, Edie Amin, The Roman Empire.

Wealth, ideology, and shear numbers kept these people in power.

In today's world weapons keep these creeps under control. He with the most bombs wins.

and the Bible say, "The peaceful will inherit the Earth." Maybe that's why we're still stuck here and not in paradise--because we have never learned how to live in peace.

Text ColorBackground Color
Ordered ListBulleted List
Horizontal Rule
Design ModeDesign
Html ModeHtml

Top Question And Answer

  • Who declared: "There is far more danger in public than in private monopoly, . . ."
  • After America departed from the gold standard, what makes the USD different from monopoly money?
  • How much cheating in monopoly is really ok by a 7 year old? 0%-?%? I am really struggling to let my
  • Is Microsoft's near-complete monopoly on the common computer software market good or bad?
  • Can Microsoft continue its monopoly in the Future?
  • Why is there a difference between Price and Marginal revenue in monopoly firm?
  • What if they came out with a new tv production company called "FUC"?
  • What is the average cost of production in the Philippines?
  • Need consultant in phosphate (P4) production, energy savings and environmental protection. Anyone?
  • what's the fastest production car
  • How do I get the production numbers from Ford To find out how many cars, came with what opts
  • What car has the largest displacement production engine?
  • Let us hope and pray that 2008 will be a Peaceful year. No more wars, or killings! Wishful thinking?
  • Who said: I can tell them to stop the violence and killings that have been happening in the UK...???
  • Is it culturally insensitive to speak out against honor killings?
  • What will happen when Iran gets nuclear weapons?
  • Do you see a parallel between internet technology and advanced weapons technology?
  • what kind of weapons would the people in charge of the slave trade have?
  • what kind of weapons were used to kill armenians during armenian genocide???
  • For the public's safety, when is Congress going to declare sausages lethal weapons?
  • Why is this a news headline? Headline reads "Federal Agents Raid Gun Shop, Weapons Found"
  • I want to buy a bag,what is the
  • How is
  • Www.mokahandbags .com
  • Facebook new account opening form
  • Hom account
  • Hom bhr0165301533
  • Hom account
  • Hom bhr0165301533
  • how do I get mms message fro.
  • Find out how many cars of my model are registered
  • What would happen if a letter opens in the mail
  • Facebook new account open
  • Facebook New Account Creation
  • Facebook new account creation
  • locating a business that closed