The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 5 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
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.
Hmm. Neither Wilson or Lincoln rhymes with tush. Nor does Roosevelt.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Geezer, you seem to be coming from the "if someone did it before, it must be okay" train of thought. You don't seem to be denying that Bush did any of these things, only that he was as bad as the others at it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also,
THIS TOO, is why we CLING to our guns...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's goin well enough, Wulfie.
Good job on doing your own homework on the topic, would that more people did.
The facts of the matter are easily obtainable, so when folks ignore them and push an agenda based on information they *know* to be factually incorrect, it damned well ought to make people suspicious of their motives.
-Frem
Btw, since I couldn't get Kirk to read it, imma suggest it to you - John Ringo's "The Road to Damascus", available here.
http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0743471873/0743471873.htm
There's a lotta useful knowledge slid sideways into that work of fiction, as well as some political understandings you could use.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Geezer, you seem to be coming from the "if someone did it before, it must be okay" train of thought. You don't seem to be denying that Bush did any of these things, only that he was as bad as the others at it.
Actually, I'm curious why Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt - who all stomped on more rights and jailed more people than Bush ever did - are American heroes, and Bush alone is considered a criminal. One thing I've noted is that L W & R had a much more compliant press.
The other point I'm trying to make is that none of this is either new or "the worst violation of rights ever".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Geezer, you seem to be coming from the "if someone did it before, it must be okay" train of thought. You don't seem to be denying that Bush did any of these things, only that he was as bad as the others at it.
Actually, I'm curious why Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt - who all stomped on more rights and jailed more people than Bush ever did - are American heroes, and Bush alone is considered a criminal. One thing I've noted is that L W & R had a much more compliant press.
The other point I'm trying to make is that none of this is either new or "the worst violation of rights ever".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Thanks for the response. My short answer on why Bush seems so much worse than the others is that he's the freshest in our living memory. The others have been colored with nostalgia. It's kind of like that girl or guy you dumped in college, because he or she was just driving you crazy. When you remember that person now, it doesn't seem that bad, and you remember the good more than the bad.
I notice history hasn't been all that kind to Hitler, though. No one ever wants to know if Hitler loved puppies. ;)
I try to paint Bush as "the worst in recent memory" or "worst in a generation", but rarely will I refer to him as the worst president ever. There are some who are almost completely unknown - they never even did enough to get noticed. Surely some of them are worse.
At any rate, history will be the judge. And as Bush says, in history we'll all be dead!
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Question: Who has the "Assault Weapon" in this pic?
Yes, the Red Coats.
Weapons of special manufacture strictly for military use is pretty much the definition of "Assault Weapon". Beyond that they are a destructive device reserved for Law Enforcement, Military, and individuals with proper licensing. Any civilian owned firearm resembling such weapons is considered a sporting arm. Their physical resemblance is the end of their likeness. To posess, modify, or acquire those weapons is illegal through federal laws. So my EVIL AR15 is not an M16. They have several different internal mechanical parts. Putting those parts in my sporting arm makes it an illicit weapon capable of firing in full automatic mode.
Why does someone like me need a weapon like this?
It is light, accurate, and easy to use. With five round magazines it is legal for me to hunt deer with it in my state. With thirty round mags it is an appropriate weapon to defend my home. It stows easily behind the seat of whatever vehicle I drive. Utility of such a weapon is much more than any of the others I posess.
Back to the picture. Notice that only the armed Imperialists stand straight and sure against a lesser armed crowd. Even some time after going to war the colonists were still outgunned and had to rely upon courage in the face of danger, guerilla warefare over being outgunned in a skirmish line, and determination against an empires will over them.
Of course they did end up forming an army and were issued "Asault Weapons". But after all is said and done they were returned to the armory just as they are today. We are still left with the lesser weapon. But I'd rather have my sporting arm than no arm at all. Any aspiring dictator knows and fears this.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Related to that, NVG, you wanna do some research into the Battle of Kings Mountain.
The single incident proved beyond a doubt that if comparably armed, and possessing the will to do so - ordinary everyday americans could go toe to toe with genuine military forces, and carry the day.
And it was THAT incident, as much as anything else that lead to the Second Amendment being held in such esteem by men who's nation might not have come to fruition without those ordinary folk, who, possessing such weapons and will, would always be a check against abuses and usurpations, thus *requiring* the "consent of the governed" rather than rule by superior force.
Right up till they tried to withdraw that consent in 1861, and Lincoln drowned them in the bodies of conscripts forced to fight* (a form of slavery in and of itself) and their own, till there was almost nobody left down there able and willing to fight.
And it's been rule of the gun ever since.
-Frem
*PS - And mind you, this jerk actually shelled the city of new york with artillery in response to draft riots, what does that tell you when the southern forces were primarily volunteers ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Notice how bloody similar Lincolns response was to folks who did not want to slaughter their brethren for his agenda ?
If the folks he was pushing to fight their countrymen had been comparably armed, there might not have BEEN a civil war.
Ponder that a while.
-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 Wulfenstar:
In answer as to why we NEED assault weapons....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg
Yeah, because we need yahoos who love their guns (a bit too much) to start shooting at rescue workers.
In the other thread, you kept asking why releif workers confiscated guns. The answer is - nutjobs like you.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, we get it Story...
Youd be on the side of the jackboots taking the weapons from the ordinary citizens.
If we do come to a civil war, please wear a bright red coat and giant feathers so I can find you in the fray.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME