The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 2 of 17
Heh.
i think if he tried to ban assault rifles (or guns period)....he might just find one of them used on him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed Malbad, which is why we must take this stand here and now - if you get into exchanging lead with the powers that be, you're gonna bite it regardless of who's right or wrong, so best is to make sure it never comes to that.
The Second is a backstop for the failure of the First and Fourth, and while they haven't fallen yet, although the Fourth is teetering on the brink, we MUST defend them all, otherwise what's the point.
Hence my passionate disgust and revulsion with anyone who's willing to defend the others, but NOT the Second - to do that is an act of supreme ignorance and gross negligence.
The Second clearly means, and we've hashed this out a hundred times with pages and pages of quotes direct from the folks who wrote it - Military grade weapons in the hands of any american who wishes to have them*, without condition whatsoever.
*in fact, given the specifics of the discussion amongst the founders, it was considered negligent behavior to NOT have such handy in case of need for personal or community defense.
There's actually regs that partain to making SURE folks too poor to afford one had access to one, which blows up the myth that said right was ever to be restricted, as well as state constitutions that not only state shall not be infringed, but rather "Shall not be QUESTIONED" setting the bar even higher in order to make that very point.
Folks say times have changed, yadda yadda, but Liberty hasn't - never will.
Oh, and Wulfie - no, you impeach his ass, is what you do, we can NOT sit here and demand they play by the rules unless we do the same ourselves.
That does include defending yourself against a patently illegal assault and robbery (seizure) but does not whatsoever give anyone leave or cause to initiate hostile action.
I know yer pissed (and same some of that ire for the rightwingnuts pissing in the pond and thus discrediting and drowning out our "voice by making us seem intolerant wackjobs) but that's not the way to handle matters, if you stoop to rule of the gun, as the powers that be have, by virtue of infringing on the second and breaking the partity of arms that required "consent of the governed" then YOU are also breaching those rules, and in the end it will change nothing.
Nor will the sellouts of the NRA, busying paving the road to hell with their so-called good intentions that always seem to make money, but no progress... hmmm?
I work with THESE folk, and so should you.
http://www.jpfo.org/
(Even the *name* drives PN nuts, but if anyone knows the end result of meekly handing em over, they surely do.)
-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
Just so the issue is better understood, here's a rather well thought out explaination by the author of The Probability Broach, L. Neil Smith.
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm
Excerpted from above.
There are a great many individuals today, both in government and in the think-tanks and foundations that constitute their intellectual bodyguard, who look down on you and me and our families as livestock. The only thing they want from us is silent, compliant labor, so that they can take whatever we earn away from us and use it as they desire. Some of it they use against us in various ways to keep us silent and compliant.
Listen to them closely and you'll hear that we might as well be different species. They are an elite -- near demigods who are above everything, including the law. We are less than nothing, of no concern to them except for the tasks we perform and the wealth we create for them to steal. If some of us can play the violin, create beautiful paintings or sculptures, or bring audiences to tears with our singing or acting, those are just "stupid pet tricks" without real value or significance.
If some of us are attacked by others, what difference does guilt or innocence make when you're talking about livestock? Animals that defend themselves are no different from the animals being defended against -- unruly cattle are unruly cattle. Any ability we may develop to protect ourselves from predators simply isn't worth the risk it poses to our "owners", which is why crime statistics that prove gun ownership reduces crime mean nothing to them.
To make it clear: politicians and bureaucrats are the owners. The IRS does the milking and butchering. BATFE is engaged in a decades- long campaign to "poll" the American public by taking away their horns. There's a Chinese proverb somewhere about how disarming people makes them easier to tax. I can't find it just now, but the point is made.
The slightest hint of individuality perceived among us -- let alone of individualism -- is reflexively interpreted as a threat or at least a problem in crowd management, which is a polite euphemism for herding.
We are less than slaves, we are the beasts of the field.
Any of ya own cats, by any chance ?
You wouldn't logically fuck with a cat, considering that they have their own ideas about what they wanna do, and are fairly well armed for their size - the idea of trying to MAKE a cat do something will send a shudder through the spine of even a strong full size human being, even though the cat is a mere 6-8 pounds of fluff.
Despite which, if you confront that cat and try to MAKE it do something, you'll not by any chance whatever walk away unscathed - which means unless it's damned important, you're a LOT less likely to push matters, yes ?
And so, people declaw them - to make them less of a threat when they wish to shove their will upon the cat, don't they ?
Methaphorically, I have a full set of very fine and sharp little claws, with some big nasty teeth backing them up - and I've no intent to part with them so that I can be "handled" at someone elses convenience, hell no.
Take a lesson from that.
-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
Hello,
Re: Cats
Best Metaphor Ever.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one.
You'd be better served by outlawing any automobile that can go more than 80mph, the highest posted speed limit in this country. No average citizen should need/want to go faster than that.
And in all reality, why not just ban automobiles entirely? No one absolutely NEEDS one - we seemed to build an entire nation before they were even invented - and they do kill an awful lot more of us every year than guns in the hands of citizens do.
As for ACTUAL "assault rifles", they're already illegal for most citizens to own, unless they have a Class III permit from the federal government. An "assault rifle" is classified as a rifle that is capable of "selective fire" in that it is capable of firing more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger. In other words, an "assault rifle" is a machine gun.
The Assault Weapons Ban seeks to make illegal any and all SEMI-AUTOMATIC versions of these weapons, weapons which are self-loading and capable of firing repeatedly without manual reloading, from an external magazine. Most such weapons come with magazines with a 10-round capacity, but there are larger-capacity magazines widely available.
Now, why would I want or need such a weapon? Well, for fun, for one thing. I enjoy shooting, and range time is expensive ($12-20/hour around here); the more time I spend shooting instead of reloading, the better bargain I'm getting. I don't NEED a large-capacity magazine to enjoy shooting, but I don't NEED a car that's capable of doing zero-to-sixty in less than five seconds or doing 155mph flat-out, either. But they sure can be fun, and there are LEGAL places to actually use them to their potential, so as long as I'm not breaking the law using such a thing, what's it to anyone else?
As for child locks, I have no children. I *rarely* have children in my house, and never without adult supervision. And when I *do* have visitors, I put my guns in a safe place. So what would child-safe locks do for me, except add more cost and nuisance to my life for no conceivable benefit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Re: Cats
Best Metaphor Ever.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Seconded.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Re: Cats
Best Metaphor Ever.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Seconded.
I can haz gud Uzi tiemz now?
Reminds me of a dopey new Stephen King book I just finished featuring a "Cat From Hell" that manages to extract bloody satisfaction against the head of a cat-testing pharma giant.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know this sounds stupid… but I think it just comes down to preventing guns from being sold to the morons of the country or:
People who have ever been in a psychiatric hospital for treatment over long periods of time (a year or longer) or repeated admissions for ‘dangerous’ behavioral issues or after many suicide attempts who are known to be a danger to those around them.
A criminal record for murder (depends the circumstances… have a gun if you were protecting your family from certain death… if that makes sense), rape, robbery, assaults, domestic violence, gang related crimes, serious drug crimes.
Or just do what my country does… unless you have a license with a gun association, are a cop or a farmer rasing certain livestock, then tough luck, you can’t have a freaking gun.
That’s just MY opinion, and of course there are certain circumstances to everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cate,
Most of the anti-moron steps you describe are already in place (to varying degrees). Indeed, the only things in your post that are not already in place is the gun club/cop/farmer thing. Conincidentally, this is the only part of your post that I disagree with.
The big problem I have with gun restriction legislation is this: I don't want a commitee of people, elected or not, deciding what's best for me, or what I do/do not need. I hold to this regardless of issue, be it guns, healthcare, or economics. I am the one who will rise or fall, live or die, based on these choices. I am the one with the most complete (and certainly the most relevant) view of my situation). If I come to the conclusion that my situation warrants an AK47, who are you ("you" in this case being anyone but me) to make that decision for me? I will always put the right of the individual over the will of the collective, and I doubt I'm alone in that line of thought.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's the deal with home invasions? Are they common? It seems Americans are obsessed with them, hence they have to armed to the teeth and are in constant fear about them. Don't most burglars wait until people are out to do over their house? Doesn't a bit of decent security and a dog have more affect than hanging around with a loaded assault weapon under your bed?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME