The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 3 of 17
Amen Ago
What Cate is espousing is the dialect of the Sheeple.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
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?
In some places, yes. Home invasions are very common. In others, not so much.
Firearms ownership is about a lot more that deterring (or defeating) a home invader. I own guns for hunting, plinking (target shooting), personal defense, and some just 'cause I have an interest in military history. I've never bought a gun out of fear. I've only carried an "assault weapon" once (in the vehicle during the Hurricane Ike evac). I've never once felt fear at the thought that someone else might be armed.
Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I understand that people own weapons for a whole range of reasons, however 'home invasion' or personal security' are commonly cited reasons. The reason I ask about 'how common?" is because I wonder what the actual liklihood on being burgled while someone is at home. I am speaking from experience as having been burgled (or as you guys would say burglarized) on a number of occasions at one premise I was living at years ago. The burglar(s) watched the house carefully to make sure I wasn't at home. My understanding is that most people who commit crimes are opportunists and would prefer not to encounter an owner or a dog, and look for empty, vulnerable locations. I wonder whether the fear of home invasions isn't played up by people with a vested interest (ie arms manufacturers, security companies etc)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magons, part of the REASON they are common, and becoming more so, is that crooks in general have become dependant and expecting of disarmed folks who will meekly kneel to even the slightest hint of threat - and what with the sheer amount of no-knock raids, play on even armed folks reluctance to fire since they have to make a determination as to whether the creeps kicking in their door at 3am are cops or crooks (not that there's much difference anymore, imho) or face dire consequences.
Many of the smarter crooks have taken to impersonating police for these home invasions, particularly in the southern US.
Believe me, if they KNEW they'd face a hail of lead, this tactic would die out pretty quick.
-Frem
PS. Funny note on that, my new landlord took one look at Forquet when we did the pre-lease walkabout and was like "holy hell in a handbasket, that monster is LEGAL?!!".
I told him sure, wanna play with it next range day ?
He's gonna love it, I'm sure.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are correct to an extent. Burglars are opportunists. They'd much rather hit a house when the owner was not there. Of course, if the owner IS there, they'd prefer that the owner not be able to defend him/herself.
The Dept. of Justice probably has all kinds of stats regarding home invasions, but remember that downtown Detroit and West Podunk, Texas will experience vastly different levels of crime.
Personal Security is a slightly different issue, but carrying a concealed handgun and toting an AK down Main Street are two different things.
Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Magons, part of the REASON they are common, and becoming more so, is that crooks in general have become dependant and expecting of disarmed folks who will meekly kneel to even the slightest hint of threat - and what with the sheer amount of no-knock raids, play on even armed folks reluctance to fire since they have to make a determination as to whether the creeps kicking in their door at 3am are cops or crooks (not that there's much difference anymore, imho) or face dire consequences.
Oh okay! Sounds terrible. Home invasions (here in Australia) where people are at home are actually quite rare, although they get a hell of lot of coverage when they do happen. Your average Joe Citizen doesn't tend to own firearms either, so its not like the crims are being deterred by that. Maybe our crims are more pathetic, most of them are poor, stupid junkies trying to fund their next fix, rather than any Ocean's 11, 12, 13 etc criminal masterminds with disguises and access to security codes.
i don't live where you do, so I can't accurately comment on your situation, but I do have a belief that we are all being fed a steady diet of fearmongering by both the media and politicans. The things we are told to fear most, coming face to face with armed intruder, being a target of terrorism, is so less likely to kill us than something mundane like being in a carcrash, or being the victim of domestic violence, or coming down with some unglamourous disease, or getting depressed and offing yourself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Fear vs what's actually *likely* to hurt you..
Indeed, but see, that's exactly how I view guns, like a fire extinguisher, first aid kit or spare tire, better to never actually need it, but if you should, it can save your ass, yes ?
It's fairly rare that joe average runs up against a hostile, but over a lifetime the odds are significant enough to warrant some mitigation, and most carry pistols are neither large or heavy.
As for home defense, well, mine is admittedly overkill but I grew up in some VERY rough places and my personal philosophy is that if caps *are* busted, I wanna be the one left standing when the shooting stops.
I think, however, that even more dangerous than disarming folk physically by crapping on the Second Amendment, is the way the mindset has been thrust upon folk from preschool on up that self defense is wrong, or vile...
THAT kills more folk than anything in the world, because when face to face with a perp, most of the time ANY resistance is enough to send them packing, and the mere deployment of a firearm is enough to send them packing right quickly...
Where the FIRST DAMN THING THEY DO, at least in south baltimore, is call the cops in an attempt to get YOU disarmed and possibly charged with brandishing, isn't that nice ?
And all too often that works! *hisssss*
Or even worse is people who instantly knuckle under so meekly at the first sign of a threat, this strokes the ego of the perp and pushes all their little power/control buttons and usually causes them to commit *worse* just to feed their inner demons.
And folks are TAUGHT to bow down like that in the public schools here, cause any resistance generally causes a brawl, upsets the social pecking order, and annoys the administrators who care less about their charges than one does a pet, if they care at all.
Cops are every bit as bad, handing out that foolish advice to cooperate cause "It ain't worth your life" - well, firstly, maybe *I* think it is, if you can't defend your stuff, are not allowed to, do you really own it ?
Secondly, what's to guarantee the perp won't cap you afterwords to eliminate the witness, do you have any IDEA how often that happens to convenience store folk ?
And thirdly, remember, these are the same dimwits who's advice to rape victims used to be "Oh just lay back and enjoy it." - Police in general have no more respect or concern for the general population (i.e. non-cops) than a factory farm has for the livestock.
It's a stupid cycle, the schools and police discouraging folk from resisting, and criminals becoming expecting of, and dependant on, that very non-resistance to become such a threat.
Which of course then "justifies" more gun bans, more police, and bigger budgets....
To me, they're just different breeds of the criminal class, only we allow the ones wearing blue to lord over us due to the fairytale myth that words on paper can effectively insulate one from the nasty things in life.
It's all downright stupid, you ask me, and that's why I pack some iron, not because I want to, but because should I wind up facing some of those nasty things, and believe me I have, driving a cab in detroit and whatnot... I plan to be prepared to deal with it, rather than call folk who'd just as soon see ME arrested for daring to actually act in my own defense.
Only time I'd call em is if there's a mess to be cleaned up, they can earn their overblown salaries hauling off the mortal remains like the social janitors they are - given that they only show up AFTER the fact unless by miracle of coincidence they happen to be at the crime scene when it occurs.
And so, I am rather defensive of my ability to do so, given the ever increasing consequences of NOT doing so thanks to a criminal element emboldened by lack of resistance encouraged by the very folk supposed to be fighting crime.
You know the old saying, behave like a victim - and sooner or later someones gonna come along and accomodate you...
Well, I ain't nobodys victim, and ain't ever gonna be long as I got a choice
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yeah, and I do NOT find it very comforting when a president-to-be has announced his intention to subvert the very document he's going to swear an Oath to defend and protect when they install him.
To be honest, I would consider that a disqualification for the office on the spot.
Wouldn't you ?
It says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Not a word about "sporting use" or "reasonable restrictions" or "permits" or whatnot, it says what it damned well says.
And he's already pre-announced his intent to not honor that.
Although no one else would really have the guts, I wonder if that could not be considered sufficient cause for a legal injunction, when you ponder it a bit.
-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
While we're looking for impeachable actions, especially when it comes to the Constitution, we should consider action against all Presidents who look to circumvent that all to perfect document.
It seems to me that I can recall a sitting President who did exactly that (ryhmes with tush).
Civil liberties, which were guaranteed in the Constitution, were seriously hampered, if not downright crippled, by changes in the nation's laws that allowed the government to perform otherwise illegal search, surviellance and siezures only on the suspiscion that someone, anyone, was a terrorist. This was just the tip of the iceberg.
The Constitution should not be tampered with...period. So yes, I agree, hang them by their thumbs from the Washington Monument if they attempt to change any portion of the Constitution.
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn Frem,
When you get on a roll, you are freakin golden.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME