Media Greasing the Wheels for Gun Ban
POSTED BY: Kirkules
UPDATED: Thursday, April 21, 2016 20:54
VIEWED: 9542
PAGE 3 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners.
Let me help you understand my logic......true that lunatics will still go into MacDonalds and kill people with handguns and rifles, but they won't be able to kill as many. Also, the police will be able to deal with a person armed with less powerful weapons much greater than if they're facing an endless stream of bullets fired from military-style assault weapons. The greater good of the public's safety should come before the personal desires of gun collectors. I don't advocate a gun ban as you infer that I do, just a rational and fair plan to eliminate the most offensive of these lethal weapons. There is no slippery slope here....it's just common sense, and as I said above...all our "rights" as citizens come with some strings attached. Better to give up these ridiculous weapons of mayhem now, and keep all your other guns, than at some point in the future have a mandate in America to confiscate all your guns. It's called compromise, and in this case I think it's fair and reasonable. The NRA's postitions on this are totally un-reasonable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners.
Let me help you understand my logic......true that lunatics will still go into MacDonalds and kill people with handguns and rifles, but they won't be able to kill as many. Also, the police will be able to deal with a person armed with less powerful weapons much greater than if they're facing an endless stream of bullets fired from military-style assault weapons. The greater good of the public's safety should come before the personal desires of gun collectors. I don't advocate a gun ban as you infer that I do, just a rational and fair plan to eliminate the most offensive of these lethal weapons. There is no slippery slope here....it's just common sense, and as I said above...all our "rights" as citizens come with some strings attached. Better to give up these ridiculous weapons of mayhem now, and keep all your other guns, than at some point in the future have a mandate in America to confiscate all your guns. It's called compromise, and in this case I think it's fair and reasonable. The NRA's postitions on this are totally un-reasonable.
I'm getting from your rant, that you believe that FULL-AUTO rifles are what should be banned, and when the media says "Assault Rifle", that is what they are talking about. They aren't. It's is almost impossible for a civilian to purchase a full-auto rifle. They are heavily restricted. You have to have a class 3 firearms license to own one legally, and the cost is extensive and the back ground check is exhausting. Here's a fact, no legally owned class 3 weapon, has EVER been used in a crime. Almost all class three weapons owners, are collectors, or civilian operated military history museums.
The weapons you talk about, that are used in crimes, are illegally owned (stolen) weapons that are smuggled into this country. No ban would fix that. It would just make it even more impossible for honest collectors to own them. The media tries to mislead everyone into thinking any nut can walk into a gun store and buy themselves a full-auto AK-47. That's just not true!!!
I see many gun owners at the local range, with semi-auto versions of AR-15s, Ak-47s, etc. Those are legal semi-auto versions and not restricted, but their rate of fire is the same as any semi-auto pistol. And no, they CANNOT be easily converted to full-auto. That's another media myth!
Hell, I've seen a few riflemen who can fire an old lever action rifle as fast and as accurately as a semi-auto rifle. Frankly, I'd be far more scared of some nut job robbing a store with a pump shotgun, than I would be if he had a semi-auto rifle. He has to aim with the rifle, which gives me time to escape and or disarm him. With a shotgun, he just has to point and shoot, and if loaded right, is much more deadly.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
King george thought us pretty unreasonable too, don't ya know...
And WHAT, tell me, willya, was his first action in response, to clear the way for the jackboot to come down, hmmmmm ?
What was it now ?
"A conflict over gunpowder stored in the Provincial Powder House (still standing near Tufts University in Somerville) heightened tensions. The province and its towns were to share the powder, but the towns had removed their allotments. When William Brattle, a Cambridge loyalist, so informed the British commander, General Thomas Gage, the British became concerned that patriot elements might seize the provincial powder as well. On 1 September 1774, British soldiers removed 250 half barrels of powder from the Powder House. One detachment marched to Cambridge and carried off two small cannons."
"On the night of April 18, 1775, General Gage sent 700 men to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. Riders including Paul Revere alerted the countryside, and when British troops entered Lexington on the morning of April 19, they found 77 minutemen formed up on the village green. Shots were exchanged, killing several minutemen. The British moved on to Concord, where a detachment of three companies was engaged and routed at the North Bridge by a force of 500 minutemen. As the British retreated back to Boston, thousands of militiamen attacked them along the roads, inflicting great damage before timely British reinforcements prevented a total disaster. With the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the war had begun."
Of course, like all Tyrants, he tried to strip the people of their defenses so his soldiers could put them in their place.
But armed men are not peons, armed men and women can NOT be forced, only persuaded.
And King George learned this lesson, and learned it well, to his chagrin, especially since in years since, via common culture, we have become great friends and staunch allies with Britain, friends and equals, rather than servant and master.
And that is DIRECTLY due to the american habit of being generally armed to the teeth and actively resistant to any attempt to change that fact, because we learned that if the ordinary citizen can stand toe-to-toe against any member of someones army, no one, externally, or internally, can conquer us and make us less than free ever again.
THAT, folks, is the root of the Second Amendment and it's purpose, to esnure that we ARE armed to the teeth, and with military hardware.
A *very* good example of this, and why it matters, is the Over-The-Mountain Men and the Battle of Kings Mountain.
The OTM were kind of proto-anarchists, they were frontiersman and mountain men, not overly fond of any government, and especially pissed off at the british - and they did not fight in ordered lines in open field, they weren't trying to "win battles", they were tryin to KILL YOU, and rather good at it, might I add.
"Cornwallis invaded North Carolina on September 9, 1780, and reached Charlotte on September 26. Ferguson followed and established a base camp at Gilbertown and issued a challenge to the Patriot leaders to lay down their arms or he would, "Lay waste to their country with fire and sword." But the tough-talking words only outraged the Appalachian frontiersmen, who decided to bring the battle to Ferguson rather than wait for him to come to them."
And having been annoyed and threatened by this little pissant, who first and foremost wanted..
WHAT?
Hmm, what did he WANT ?
Their arms!
So they came on over the mountain and decided to give him some of their musketballs, since he wanted them so badly, and completely *DECIMATED* the British Regulars.
"On the Loyalist side, 225 were killed and 163 wounded, and 716 were taken prisoners. The frontier militia casualties were 28 killed and 62 wounded. Loyalist prisoners well enough to walk were herded to camps several miles from the battlefield. The dead and wounded were left on the field. The frontiersmen hung as many as nine Loyalists who had changed sides.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I fail to see any logic in your argument. The idea that the fast food joint would be less terrorized by handguns and shotguns just baffles me. Handguns and Shotguns are used much more often in crimes than semi-automatic rifles. Do you see them as having some super-protected status, while rifles don't. The number of law enforcement officers killed with semi-automatic rifles in infinitesimal when compared with handguns. The truth is you have fallen for the propaganda of the gun banners.
Let me help you understand my logic......true that lunatics will still go into MacDonalds and kill people with handguns and rifles, but they won't be able to kill as many. Also, the police will be able to deal with a person armed with less powerful weapons much greater than if they're facing an endless stream of bullets fired from military-style assault weapons. The greater good of the public's safety should come before the personal desires of gun collectors. I don't advocate a gun ban as you infer that I do, just a rational and fair plan to eliminate the most offensive of these lethal weapons. There is no slippery slope here....it's just common sense, and as I said above...all our "rights" as citizens come with some strings attached. Better to give up these ridiculous weapons of mayhem now, and keep all your other guns, than at some point in the future have a mandate in America to confiscate all your guns. It's called compromise, and in this case I think it's fair and reasonable. The NRA's postitions on this are totally un-reasonable.
I'm getting from your rant, that you believe that FULL-AUTO rifles are what should be banned, and when the media says "Assault Rifle", that is what they are talking about. They aren't. It's is almost impossible for a civilian to purchase a full-auto rifle. They are heavily restricted. You have to have a class 3 firearms license to own one legally, and the cost is extensive and the back ground check is exhausting. Here's a fact, no legally owned class 3 weapon, has EVER been used in a crime. Almost all class three weapons owners, are collectors, or civilian operated military history museums.
The weapons you talk about, that are used in crimes, are illegally owned (stolen) weapons that are smuggled into this country. No ban would fix that. It would just make it even more impossible for honest collectors to own them. The media tries to mislead everyone into thinking any nut can walk into a gun store and buy themselves a full-auto AK-47. That's just not true!!!
I see many gun owners at the local range, with semi-auto versions of AR-15s, Ak-47s, etc. Those are legal semi-auto versions and not restricted, but their rate of fire is the same as any semi-auto pistol. And no, they CANNOT be easily converted to full-auto. That's another media myth!
Hell, I've seen a few riflemen who can fire an old lever action rifle as fast and as accurately as a semi-auto rifle. Frankly, I'd be far more scared of some nut job robbing a store with a pump shotgun, than I would be if he had a semi-auto rifle. He has to aim with the rifle, which gives me time to escape and or disarm him. With a shotgun, he just has to point and shoot, and if loaded right, is much more deadly.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
Thanks for calling my one paragraph response to another poster a "rant". Frankly, I don't buy your hair-splitting of the issue. Fair-minded people know what I'm talking about in reference to being able to compromise on the issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
King george thought us pretty unreasonable too, don't ya know...
And WHAT, tell me, willya, was his first action in response, to clear the way for the jackboot to come down, hmmmmm ?
What was it now ?
"A conflict over gunpowder stored in the Provincial Powder House (still standing near Tufts University in Somerville) heightened tensions. The province and its towns were to share the powder, but the towns had removed their allotments. When William Brattle, a Cambridge loyalist, so informed the British commander, General Thomas Gage, the British became concerned that patriot elements might seize the provincial powder as well. On 1 September 1774, British soldiers removed 250 half barrels of powder from the Powder House. One detachment marched to Cambridge and carried off two small cannons."
"On the night of April 18, 1775, General Gage sent 700 men to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. Riders including Paul Revere alerted the countryside, and when British troops entered Lexington on the morning of April 19, they found 77 minutemen formed up on the village green. Shots were exchanged, killing several minutemen. The British moved on to Concord, where a detachment of three companies was engaged and routed at the North Bridge by a force of 500 minutemen. As the British retreated back to Boston, thousands of militiamen attacked them along the roads, inflicting great damage before timely British reinforcements prevented a total disaster. With the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the war had begun."
Of course, like all Tyrants, he tried to strip the people of their defenses so his soldiers could put them in their place.
But armed men are not peons, armed men and women can NOT be forced, only persuaded.
And King George learned this lesson, and learned it well, to his chagrin, especially since in years since, via common culture, we have become great friends and staunch allies with Britain, friends and equals, rather than servant and master.
And that is DIRECTLY due to the american habit of being generally armed to the teeth and actively resistant to any attempt to change that fact, because we learned that if the ordinary citizen can stand toe-to-toe against any member of someones army, no one, externally, or internally, can conquer us and make us less than free ever again.
THAT, folks, is the root of the Second Amendment and it's purpose, to esnure that we ARE armed to the teeth, and with military hardware.
A *very* good example of this, and why it matters, is the Over-The-Mountain Men and the Battle of Kings Mountain.
The OTM were kind of proto-anarchists, they were frontiersman and mountain men, not overly fond of any government, and especially pissed off at the british - and they did not fight in ordered lines in open field, they weren't trying to "win battles", they were tryin to KILL YOU, and rather good at it, might I add.
"Cornwallis invaded North Carolina on September 9, 1780, and reached Charlotte on September 26. Ferguson followed and established a base camp at Gilbertown and issued a challenge to the Patriot leaders to lay down their arms or he would, "Lay waste to their country with fire and sword." But the tough-talking words only outraged the Appalachian frontiersmen, who decided to bring the battle to Ferguson rather than wait for him to come to them."
And having been annoyed and threatened by this little pissant, who first and foremost wanted..
WHAT?
Hmm, what did he WANT ?
Their arms!
So they came on over the mountain and decided to give him some of their musketballs, since he wanted them so badly, and completely *DECIMATED* the British Regulars.
"On the Loyalist side, 225 were killed and 163 wounded, and 716 were taken prisoners. The frontier militia casualties were 28 killed and 62 wounded. Loyalist prisoners well enough to walk were herded to camps several miles from the battlefield. The dead and wounded were left on the field. The frontiersmen hung as maNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey this seems like a good topic to jump in on...
Okay so here goes, Personally I don't feel the Second Amendment give everyone the right to have guns, rifles, etc from my reading of it because it has the line that no one reads "in a well regulated militia" i.e. National Guard. However, I don't think that any guns should be specifically banned from public ownership. It's the same idea as making a hazmat drivers license harder to get. Are the bad guys going to wait in line to get approval for the license? Hell no, that would be going with the system they aim to destroy...I do feel that some oversight on full automatic weapons and explosives should be in place to provide some level of protection against the guy who gets fired on Friday and comes in shooting on Monday, i.e. is the guy/girl has shot and killed someone in anger before, they lose the legal right...but that's protecting the right to life with a proven violator of the responsibilities of gun ownership. Personally as a veteran, I don't understand how I can be given an automatic weapon one day and then be told I have no right to use it the next...all that is changing is that in the Army someone is telling you who to shoot and on your own you have to make that choice by yourself. This opinion from a liberal lefty...
When there are no heroes where will we turn?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Explain why you need a military assault weapon for anything other than starting a war?
Explain why you need a car and a bottle of single-malt scotch for anything other than drunk driving.
The "need" question is pretty bogus. Why do you "need" anything but a bowl of gruel and a shed to sleep in? Why do you "need" the freedom of speech? Why do you "need" freedom at all? Your basic needs could easily be met by any competent dictator or slaveholder.
The fair question would be, why do you "want" something? You want the scotch because you like the taste. The car takes you where you want to go when you want to go there. Freedom of speech lets you express yourself on chat boards. etc.
Why would one "want" a military-style rifle? probably as many reasons as there are people who want them. The AK-style rifles are lower-priced than most hunting rifles and capable of killing game at short ranges, so folks on budgets buy them for that. The ammo is cheap so if you like shooting tin cans out on the south forty they're a good fit. The M-16 clones can be quite accurate and are used for target competition or long-range varmint hunting. In rural areas, they can all be useful for self-defense.
I wouldn't mind having an M-16 clone myself, just for general paper-punching, but am gonna be building a 1000-yard F-class target rifle first.
Besides, as Fremd notes, it's your natural right to be able to defend yourself. If you wish to forfiet that right, well, that's your right too.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Individual citizens must be willing to compromise on the issue, or else one day they'll see all their weapons being threatened with confiscation.
Paying Danegeld results in paying Danegeld.
You are proposing a lose-lose situation that is at it's root utterly untenable.
Were we to compromise even one single bit, as many complete, historically ignorant idiots already have, whos number I thankfully do not count myself within, the end result of allowing one restriction has been that it begets another, and another, and another...
It's like Taxes, you allow them one single bite, and they'll be back for more over and over again until you have a feeding frenzy on your hands.
Paying Danegeld results in paying Danegeld.
And IF they wish to threaten confiscation in return for not just meekly handing them over, then the game is up, all the lies exposed, and the true face of this Corpo-Fascist Oligarchy we like to pretend is a Democratic Republic will be finally and forevermore exposed for exactly what it is.
And then we can either accept it, or if you can find anyone with a fuckin spine left in this country, maybe do something about it.
And better that it happen when those folks, if there even are any left, have the ABILITY to do something about it.
You're saying fork over our Constitutional Rights piecemeal now, deprive ourselves of the ability to defend them - in order to prevent them from being TAKEN from us later ?
Do you in ANY way comprehend just how IDIOTIC that position is ?
That's like handing over your pistol to a mugger in hopes of him accepting that instead of your wallet, and then presuming he'd just take it and go away!
It's just plain fuckin stupid.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A lady recently called 911 they killed her while she was on the phone.
Not surprising, generally when you hand over your personal safety and security to the State, they do a piss-poor job of it.
Tell me folks, why don't you now...
The difference between THIS case ?
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110//03-20-2008/20080320105002_06.ht
ml
And THIS case ?
http://www.nbc5.com/news/15024352/detail.html
Until you can find a way to justify the top case as the preferable result...
You might just wanna contemplate for a while about exactly what it is you are proposing, if you cannot justify the folks who your suggestions, if taken, will leave dead on the floor, unarmed and unprotected.
Anyone who supports ignoring or distorting the Second Amendment is every bit as much a victimizer of those people as the fucker who killed em - and make no mistake, that is indeed where you rate as a person in my eyes.
Cause you'd rather have me dead on the floor with a burglar looting my stuff, rather than me standing over a dead burglar with a couple well deserved holes in his ass.
That makes you the accomplice, willfully aiding and abetting criminals by stripping citizens of the means to hold out successfully till the cavalry arrives, or in lieu of that, handle matters themself if they must.
That's not intended as rhetoric, either - fact is, when people cannot get weapons, when the bullshit, red tape and other issues wall them off from effective self defense, and they run up against criminals who ARE armed...
THEY DIE.
And in my opinion, those of you without respect for the Second Amendment ?
You helped pull the trigger on them.
And for them that might like a more erm...
Southern flavor, to the above rant, see also LAWDOG.
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/
Good guy, don't always agree with him, but he's an ok dude.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Thanks for calling my one paragraph response to another poster a "rant". Frankly, I don't buy your hair-splitting of the issue. Fair-minded people know what I'm talking about in reference to being able to compromise on the issue.
It's not hair splitting at all. Nice attempt to deflect your own ignorance, and call for allies, but fair minded people know better and do their research. Get real kid!
It's becoming more and more obvious that you really don't know what you are talking about. Sorry, but there is NO compromise when were talking about the Constitution. When we allow that, we weaken the Constitution!
Fact: You clearly didn't know the difference between a semi-auto rifle, and a full-auto rifle. The media has brainwashed you. If it looks like a full-auto military weapon, it must be one! That's a lie, and you're a fool for not doing some research before talking on an issue you clearly don't understand.
The media points at a semi-auto rifle, that looks just like the rifle G.I. Joe carries in Iraq, and his gun shoots lots of bullets really really fast, and they call the civilian version an "Assault Rifle" The lemmings believe it without checking the facts for themselves, buy into the BS, and scream for a ban!
The media pulled the same crap in the 70's, calling short barreled revolvers (popular with off duty and undercover cops of the era) "Saturday Night Specials", and tried to ban them. They tried again in the 80's, calling Glocks "Plastic Guns", and making false claims about them being undetectable by airport x-rays (A complete lie), and tried to ban importation of them. Oh, wait, isn't that the same fine weapon almost every cop in America now carries in their duty belt, and relies on to protect them? Thats odd!! Could the media be wrong? YES!
So, before reacting from ignorance again, why don't you instead take the time to learn a few facts, and thank the people in this thread who are attempting to educate you in a few simple truths and some common sense. I'm not sure if your ego will allow you to admit when you're wrong, but one can always hope! Check your facts before spouting media bias! It makes you look foolish!
Now that's a RANT! At least I got may facts right!
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME