The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 1 of 2
Hello,
In visiting the President-Elect website today, I found in his Urban Policies section a stated intention to make the expired Assault Weapons Ban permanent, and to make all firearms childproof.
While these goals are sitting in the corner of the basement, they are still stated goals, and I would oppose them.
I hope he elects not to pursue these flawed policies during his administration.
Question: What have you got against banning Assault Weapons?
Answer: The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban assault weapons. Rather, it banned weapons which have a physical resemblence to assault weapons (they looked scary) and created a situation where fun, sporty rifles became inaccessable. Literally, certain grip options were deemed 'bad.'
I also oppose any legislation that allows peace officers to be armed beyond what is allowed amongst the civilian population. Any limit on civilian arms must apply to police arms as well, to preserve a balance between the citizenry and the people responsible for preserving the law.
Question: Why do you oppose the child-safing of firearms?
Answer: There is no reliable technology available that 'child-safes' a gun while leaving it handy and capable at a moment's notice for defending oneself. 'Child Safing' firearms is a feat to be accomplished with education (I call it gun-safing Children), not whiz-bang features that hobble my ability to use a firearm.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What I really want to know...and I have to warm up here. I own a Remington 308 with a bitchin tactical scope. And an older 30/06 with a four round clip. A British 303. A Colt DA 38.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In visiting the President-Elect website today, I found in his Urban Policies section a stated intention to make the expired Assault Weapons Ban permanent, and to make all firearms childproof.
Police statistics here say that of the home owners that draw thier weapons during a home invasion, 93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons. I can't imagine that, mr home invader at the malbad mansion is leaving in parts.
The 303, Colt DA38, and the 06 are sentimental, and I got enough firepower for a home invasion or a hunting trip. But I still don't get the "from my cold dead hands" mentality. If they came for my guns and said they'd kill me if I didn't hand them over, it's not that unsafe here that I wouldn't hand them right over. As opposed to fighting for them. To me it's the same as if they came to get my gas burning car, or my incandescent bulbs. I know there is the 2nd, but that can't be all there is behind that kind of devotion.[/B/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Answer: The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban assault weapons. Rather, it banned weapons which have a physical resemblence to assault weapons (they looked scary) and created a situation where fun, sporty rifles became inaccessable. Literally, certain grip options were deemed 'bad.'
Hell, Anthony, it didn't even ban those weapons - just the IMPORTED ones. It wasn't about safety, ever; it was about the APPEARANCE of safety, but it was also about protectionism for American gun makers.
And I never understood why it was that having a pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun made me automatically more likely to kill somebody with it.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Question: What have you got against banning Assault Weapons?
Nothing. As long as Assault Weapons are actually banned. There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one.
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Question: Why do you oppose the child-safing of firearms?
I don't. Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.
But, I'll also point out that it isn't just the laws that are behind a reduction in violent crime involving guns or similar. It's also the general mentality behind such legislation in society. It works in civilised nations because people are generally peaceful and those that aren't have more limited options to do harm. But, in a different society, when things go wrong they'll go wrong really really badly.
If a country is going to create new laws such as these, it would be naive to think that it'll have immediate effect. As in, those types of firearms are already out there in good supply. It's the long term affects that need to be considered when considering such legislation.
Not to mention that there is a chicken and the egg problem. Do the laws come first, or the mentality? Maybe both little by little?
But, to be clear, these laws need to do what they are intended to do. Otherwise, you're just shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended
).----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons.
93% of them did not NEED to.
The perps, expecting a disarmed and compliant victim set out on a plate for them by policies intended to make them easier for the Gov to victimise (and work just fine for other crooks too) - ran into someone NOT disarmed, NOT compliant, and found somewhere else to be in a hurry, oh what a horrible tragedy, no crime occured to blame on guns, no excuse to jack taxes and put more blue suited gangbangers with badges at the public trough....
Criminals in todays era EXPECT unarmed victims, and meek compliance, fact is when most of them run up across ANY FORM OF RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER, they've no clue what to do, and usually the resister wins out even if unarmed.
Making folks disarmed and compliant isn't the answer, just look at Miranda if you wanna see where that shit goes.
Making it life-threatening to be a predatory scumbag ?
That is.
-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:
I don't. Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.
Ok, then can I put them on all your fire extinguishers and then put the keys out in the glovebox of your car ?
Should make you so much safer from an accidental discharge of your fire extinguisher, which happens oh so often now, right ?
And shouldn't make any difference at all when that grease fire breaks out in your kitchen, right ?
Common sense, any child too young to comprehend, should not be able to access the weapon, pure negligence that would be, and any child old enough to comprehend should know better than to mess with it.
A gun with a gunlock on it ?
Jeeper creepers, just buy a fucking CLUB then, cause that's all it is, by the time you get the damn thing unlocked and ready, you're dead, and you know what ?
If you're THAT fucking stupid, maybe you need to be.
-Frem
PS. No, Anthony, that wasn't nice of me, regardless, I will never ever again be nice on this topic, under no circumstances what so ever.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one (an assault weapon).
Actually, just hearing you say that makes me need/want one.
I'm always cautious of people who decide, "Well, I certainly don't need or want to (insert action of your choice here), so of course no one else should, so we can ban it with a clear conscience." Even changing it to "Well, most people certainly don't need or want to..." doesn't make me any more comfortable.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.
How about filling in all the swimming pools? More children die of drowning in pools than in firearms accidents.
in 2005, 75 children 14 or younger were killed by the accidental discharge of a firearm (789 for all ages). 810 were drowned (3582 for all ages). In fact, almost every other type of accidental death is more likely to kill children than firearms.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
http://www.poolalarms.com/pool_drowning_statistics.htm
In 1992 bicycles killed 260 14 and under. maybe we should ban bikes while we're at it?
http://www.helmets.org/cdcstats.htm
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, just hearing you say that makes me need/want one.
I'm always cautious of people who decide, "Well, I certainly don't need or want to (insert action of your choice here), so of course no one else should, so we can ban it with a clear conscience." Even changing it to "Well, most people certainly don't need or want to..." doesn't make me any more comfortable.
Indeed. One of the more despicable examples of political 'reasoning'. Right up there with "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear".
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think I see your point. the old "they don't like it when you shoot at them", or merely point a weapon in defense accounts for the lack of shooting. Which is a good outcome. That's reasonable.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons.
93% of them did not NEED to.
The perps, expecting a disarmed and compliant victim set out on a plate for them by policies intended to make them easier for the Gov to victimise (and work just fine for other crooks too) - ran into someone NOT disarmed, NOT compliant, and found somewhere else to be in a hurry, oh what a horrible tragedy, no crime occured to blame on guns, no excuse to jack taxes and put more blue suited gangbangers with badges at the public trough....
Criminals in todays era EXPECT unarmed victims, and meek compliance, fact is when most of them run up across ANY FORM OF RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER, they've no clue what to do, and usually the resister wins out even if unarmed.
Making folks disarmed and compliant isn't the answer, just look at Miranda if you wanna see where that shit goes.
Making it life-threatening to be a predatory scumbag ?
That is.
That whole wild west self serve law enforcement did a great job of scumbag prevention. And a compelling point is the tride and true "only the outlaws will have guns" thing.
But one ironic scenario still haunts me, it's the thought of me getting killed defending my rifles and revolver. That's "arse be ackward.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
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
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"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
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?
You'll get no argument from me. Hang the lot.
But when you do, remember that the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st, 4th, 5th, and all the rest.
Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about this...
Instead of trying to ban all weapons, or conviscate them, or price them out of ownership...
We make it law that you MUST be armed. You MUST carry AT LEAST a handgun (of no less than 9mm) on you at ALL TIMES. And you HAVE to know how to use it.
Unless you are a convicted criminal or crazy, EVERYONE must be armed, starting at 18.
(Before 18 you must carry a knife and know how to use it.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hmm. Neither Wilson or Lincoln rhymes with tush. Nor does Roosevelt.
Not in English...he's speaking Gibberish (the native tongue of Gibraltar) in which everthing rhymes with "tush" except "Crazytalk" which sounds like "Geezer".
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Glad to see ya back Zero, hope ya had fun.
As for the other stuff, wouldn't be their thumbs I'd wanna hang em from, and I'd have done so to about 90% of em if not more.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf, it's called Kennesaw, Georgia.
And it WORKED.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=31381&m=561443
Of course, when it didn't match with the gun-grabbers predictions of social chaos and a "gunfight on every corner" - they dropped it right down the memory hole, believe it.
-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
I always thought/knew it would work.
Give a society the ways, rights, and means to protect themselves (from government AND from each other)...
Then there will be peace.
For all the whining many do for peace, they never REALLY want it. They will never take the steps to insure and enshrine it.
I don't believe that peace is just the calm between wars, but rather....it is found when every citizen has true freedom and the ability of self-determination.
That can only be had when everyone has the power to protect themselves. When the government (and its representatives) are held in check by that same power of the people.
In truth, why do we think we need cops?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Same reason we "need" Government.
*spits in disgust*
Either one is just a freakin plague masquerading as it's own cure - always was, always will be.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, as you are now part of the plague....lol
Hows the cure going?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In answer as to why we NEED assault weapons....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
With so many views and attrocities during war time it is always a little hard to tell right from wrong. Again we are in a time of war and many are grasping at whatever straws they can reach. Everyone wanted change, well here it is. We on the road to pacification. I've heard a few men from the UK refer to their service to the crown as enforcement of her Majestey's divine emasculation.
I for one value my freedom (and my man parts) far too much to allow such a travesty to occur. Sure my vote was cast. But was it counted. I'm still to see the numbers for None Of These Candidates.
And the sayings stand true.
The losing side isn't always the wrong side.
Love, life, and the pusuit of happiness.
Freedom isn't free.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
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.
Hardly. I'm just not gonna get bent outta shape because the paranoid elements and get-hard-lookin-at-a-big-gun types like you are loosing their toys.
"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
DOn't worry. The US government is notorious for disarming folks then murdering them prefering to call it a battle rather than a massacre or retribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre
Forget freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and free speech. These people were the first Americans and were denied those rights until 1924.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
"Hardly. I'm just not gonna get bent outta shape because the paranoid elements and get-hard-lookin-at-a-big-gun types like you are loosing their toys."
Yeah, you go ahead and get bent.
Assclown.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Storymark, I'm dismayed that the only freedoms you care to uphold are the freedoms that you are personally using at the moment.
Or... Are you willing to uphold even those?
Are there any freedoms you wouldn't sell to obtain the illusory eden called SAFETY?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. I just asked that question of myself. I'd give up my guns for real safety. But men are not angels so I don't see it happening in this life. Maybe I'll get lucky in the next.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
He doesnt care. If the order came from on high to ignore the Constitution, hed do it.
He, like so many in law enforcement, believe that laws come from men, and "officials".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Hardly. I'm just not gonna get bent outta shape because the paranoid elements and get-hard-lookin-at-a-big-gun types like you are loosing their toys."
Yeah, you go ahead and get bent.
Assclown.
Looks like I touched a nerve. Go rub your gun a little, it'll make you feel better.
"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
AnthonyT or any of the other pro gun folks on this thread: perhaps you can help me understand better... I assumed this conflict between pro and anti gun people was do in large part to a huge lack of communication.
One side believes reducing the number of guns will reduce violent crime and the other side believes the right to bare arms is primary to their personal freedom as US citizens.
I thought that was the debate in a nutshell. I thought it was just a matter of time before both sides would find common ground.
But now, for the first time in... ever I'm hearing this idea of civil war and "Our Government is Bad," and we need to arm ourselves to protect us from the Police and The Gov, almost as much as from burglars and break-ins. What gives? What have I been missing? Who's the enemy?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Storymark, I'm dismayed that the only freedoms you care to uphold are the freedoms that you are personally using at the moment.
Or... Are you willing to uphold even those?
Are there any freedoms you wouldn't sell to obtain the illusory eden called SAFETY?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Okay, I'll try to approach this answer politely, since unlike Wulfentard, you asked it more or less in that vein (I'll let your implied insults slide for now).
It has nothing to do with selling out rights for safety - I'm very much agaist infringing on rights for safety. Personally, I don't like guns. However, I don't support banning them in general. Registration and restrictions (felons, ect) are fine by me.
But I've yet to see a compelling argument for why people NEED assault weapons. A handgun is generally going to be far more usefull for self defense, and if it comes down to fighting the US military - an AR isn't gonna make the difference.
I'm not saying assault weapons should be banned either - but I don't really care if they are, because I don't see a nessecity for having them.
In my experience - and I'm not saying it's universally true - but those who I know who are upset over an assault weapon ban are the gun nuts. Guys who get off on having bigger, badder guns. They talk big about constitutional rights, but are okay with other rights being taken away, as long as you don't threaten their favorite toy. And in that case, no, I'm not going to fight for someones right to have a big fuckin' toy. There are far, far more importants things top worry about.
"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
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
He doesnt care. If the order came from on high to ignore the Constitution, hed do it.
He, like so many in law enforcement, believe that laws come from men, and "officials".
Well, that doesn't actually apply to anything I said. But I bet you feel better about yourself for getiing all self-righteous.
Fuck you, chump. You can rail at me all you like, but the opinion a scared bigot like yourself matters to me not at all.
But who, other than men, make the laws?
Go ahead, say God. I need a laugh.
"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
Post deleted for, um...makin' poster look dumb, and s**t..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, you just mis-attributed....
(but he fixed it)
"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
Hello,
Storymark, first I think we need to define 'gun nut.' Then we need to define 'assault weapon.' Just so I can make sure we're on the same page.
When the stresses of life get me down, I have a ritual I perform. I put on my cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and cowboy-esque leather belt and leather holsters. I strap on my Taurus Gaucho .357 single-action, and my Heritage Manufacturing .22 single-action. I take up my plastic SKS rifle case. If I have enough .380 ammo handy, I'll even bring my Makarov. Then I'll get into my Kia Sportage, drive for about 40 minutes until I get to the Middle Of Nowhere, Arizona. Once I'm there, I'll set out some targets (like the old coke cans and bottles littering the floor of my car) or find some that some other shooter before me left laying around. Then I'll shoot the targets. When I get tired of shooting, I'll pull out the folding chair and take a nap. It's fun to take a nap in Nowhere. Just you and the dust and the mountains and rocks. When I'm done, I'll pack up my stuff and head home, usually after 4-6 hours. If I go with friends, we'll spend a lot of our time out there eating barbecued hotdogs from a portable grill and chatting. And I'm the only one of my friends who can take a nap while everyone else is shooting. It takes talent.
I love guns. Amazing tools, them. And I love shooting. I don't keep score, but I do consider it a sport. I'm a gun nut, an urban cowboy, one of those crazies who'd love to have a locker full of firearms in my house. Sometimes I'll take one out and take it apart a little, and clean it... Even when it's not dirty. There's something meditative about gun oil, I think.
Of my guns, ALL of them are based on the design of a military or police weapon. The single-action revolvers are patterned after Colt Peacemakers, which were Army revolvers. The SKS was the Soviet combat rifle prior to the massive production of the AK-47. It even has a combat bayonet attached. The Makarov was the official sidearm of the KGB, though mine is chambered in an American caliber. I don't happen to own an AK-47, which is something you'd probably call a modern assault rifle. Someday, though, I'd like to. I'd like to have a 7.62 Russian rifle that doesn't need stripper-clips. I can see me loading up a dozen mags while watching a favorite television show, and taking them out to Nowhere with me to do my shooting. That's what I do with the stripper clips, now. It's very relaxing.
Now, for some reason I can't understand, you sound as though you begrudge me these simple pleasures. I can't fathom why.
Pizmo, as for your question, a very useful function of firearms is to provide defense. Who you are defending yourself against can vary from crack addicts to power addicts. God willing, the victims of my weapons will always be 12 and 20 ounce soft-drink containers.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bigger gun, this and that. Handgun=PDW. Sidearm. In a real fight it means almost nothing.
For real people it isn't the tiny penis syndrome seen so often with vehicles, houses, money...
Of course since Law Enforcement is so quick to react to disturbances and all...
Naturally it is sometimes people who've never been on the bad side of the gun to poo poo at logical and responsible owners and fanatics alike. I've never known a LEO who didn't support the right to BEAR arms and were in favor of people being their own best defenders. Sure they are scared of weapons, but I'm sure they also consider the implications of citizens who could not defend themselves.
After seeing this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg
earlier today it brought back an old thought I had. Is this the "safety" we seek? Being watched over by soldiers with actual "Assault Weapons".
And again, that is the illusion many cling to. Wait until your group, religion, or creed pisses off the wrong people. Our history has a plethora of examples of massacre and retribution. I made referance to one and received nary a response to it. Paranoid?
Seeing as those people referenced followed a religion started a few miles from my home by people of my blood and color. Reminders to those who didn't grow up with stories of murdered children as a warning only to see such things as an adult because of the illusion of that security.
For those who cry "Paranoia" I accept that as your answer. Truth carries farther than ignorance. Until all the people who care about the truth are dead of course.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
I think it's funny to watch a zealot accuse another zealot of being unreasonable.
Frankly, I prefer "gun nuts" to "for your own good" in spite of the obvious human flaws of either.
And apparently my commentary about defending all Constitutional rights was as usual, missed or ignored.
History tells the tale, if only anyone listens.
Registration - Confiscation - Obliteration.
We've seen the first two already, right here in america - do we really have to wait till we see the last to care ?
Oh, and as for "shooting at rescue workers" you *DO* know those stories were as thoroughly debunked as any other flim-flam faery tale the media has tried to sell us ?
Is it really the tool you fear, or the idea that as long as I possess it, you'll have a damn hard time forcing your will upon me... "for my own good".
Cause I truly believe it's the latter.
-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,
Frem, you've forgotten the obvious third option.
People who don't want you to have guns are generally afraid. Afraid of what someone with a gun might do to them. You've become so focused on 'the man' and his endless desire to do stuff to you, that you've forgotten about the climate of fear bred to control those on the bottom rungs of the ladder.
They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.
They are afraid of you.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony, I'm right there with you. Shooting doesn't fill me with blood-lust and send me on a killing frenzy; it relaxes me. There's something very calming about slowing things down, controlling your breathing, squeezing the trigger slowly, and putting five bullets into the size of a quarter at 100 yards on iron sights. It's not something you can do UNLESS you're relaxed, in fact, or at least I can't.
And for the uninitiated, maybe some of them can explain what it is, exactly, that makes a semi-automatic version of an AK-47 an "assault rifle", while a semi-automatic SKS is not. Is it the grip? The caliber? The magazine? The barrel length?
What is it exactly that people have against "assault weapons"? Is it the POSSIBILITY of what someone MIGHT do with one? Did you ever stop to ask yourself the simple questions: If I'm motivated to kill, do I need a gun to do it? Couldn't I take out just as many people with a car, a sword, a chainsaw?
And yes, all of my guns are based on, or actually ARE, military weapons. Even my Ruger P85 9mm handgun is just another variant of the Browning-designed M1911 .45 military sidearm. Then there's the AK-47 variations: a Saiga "Sporter" 7.62x39mm and a Norinco MAK-90 7.62x39mm, a hoary old bolt-action Russian Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54mm, and an Argentine-built FN/FAL .308, one of the world's best main battle rifles.
Funny thing, though - of all of them, only the handgun (which Storymark considers "acceptable") came with a magazine with a capacity over 10 rounds. The Saiga and the FAL have 10-round mags (you CAN modify the Saiga to take 30-round mags, but doing so in a careless fashion is a federal violation that can net you 10 years at Club Fed), the MAK and the Nagant have 5-rounders (internal on the Nagant). The Ruger shipped with two 15-round mags.
Only one of them has a pistol grip - the FAL. Only two of them fire full-sized rifle cartridges - the FAL and the Mosin-Nagant. The AK variants fire a shorter carbine round, and as such have a much shorter effective range.
None of them are automatic weapons. All but the bolt-action Mosin-Nagant are semi-automatic, and as such lack any capability to fire full-auto or bursts of two or three rounds with a pull of the trigger.
What I'd really like to know is which of these you'd classify as an "assault weapon", and what criteria you're basing these classifications on, other than the "evil black gun" mantra that is so often touted in the media. Why is a semi-auto AK variant with a 5- or 10-round magazine more dangerous than a semi-auto handgun with a (completely legal) 15-round magazine? Why is an AK considered more "evil" than an old bolt-action rifle with a much greater effective range and a much more powerful cartridge?
Also, can you think of any reason I couldn't go hunting with an AK-47 rather than a 30-06, if I chose to do so? I mean, other than the fact that a hunter with an AK will have to get closer, thus giving the intended target a better chance to get away.
Just a few things to ponder...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Frem, you've forgotten the obvious third option.
People who don't want you to have guns are generally afraid. Afraid of what someone with a gun might do to them. You've become so focused on 'the man' and his endless desire to do stuff to you, that you've forgotten about the climate of fear bred to control those on the bottom rungs of the ladder.
They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.
They are afraid of you.
--Anthony
I think there is quite a bit of truth in this.
If you are not part of a gun culture, your association with weapons is not sport or hobby, it's what you see in the news and the movies and that is always gun violence. Shooting at people. Efficient killing. Aggression. People feeling great affection for guns are therefor suspect. Why do they like to shoot at human-shaped targets? What if they get mad at their neighbor? Will they feel justified in finally brandishing their dangerous toys to demonstrate how "strong" they are?
(Guns are pretty much the ultimate ridiculous - the bigger the more so - phallic symbol, which doesn't help make it seem like it's not supposed to overcompensate for something not quite right.)
The image of a peaceful, responsible, competent gun owner isn't promoted a lot.
I'm a victim of this association myself.
It took me a while to recognize this instant association as wrong, and it always takes work to move beyond it when thinking about subjects like this.
Once I did, my opinions about gun control changed, as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
They are afraid of you.
You know what I got to say to that ?
GOOD!
Bible-nuts have historically slaughtered far and away more people than Gun-nuts, and if the former are afraid of the latter I rate that as a damned good thing, maybe it'll prevent then next genocidal slaughter in the name of love and mercy.
Yes that's a deliberate slap - but frankly if they wanna try to strip me of a Constitutional Right (to keep and bear arms) then I feel it only fair to suggest stripping them of theirs (freedom of religion and it's expression) - given that factually Christianity is a far more dangerous thing than individual firearm ownership, and all Christians should have to undergo a mandatory psychological evaluation, register with their local police and wear an RFID monitor so they can be kept track of - and should be barred from entering schools and public forums where their murderous ideas might be shared, as well as any "Christian-Free" zone that a private property owner has set up.
That's fair, isn't it ?
Doesn't taste so pleasant when it's aimed at YOU, does it now ?
I'll leave it to your own wonderings how much of that was snark and how much was serious, just to keep ya guessing.
As for exactly WHAT people carry - why does anyone care ?
Look at it this way, you don't NEED an air ratchet to get them lugnuts off, a long handled socket wrench would do just fine, but it sure makes things more convenient, yes ?
It's a goddamn tool, is all that it is - and to fear it is ludicrous.
When I am out and about, my carry piece is a downright laughable little popgun, just enough to defend myself with at close range, and my method of dealing with conflict is to avoid them or de-escalate them before they become a problem, and it's worked pretty damned well for many a year.
Of course, this is also based on the fact that while out and about I have my leg on and functional, and quick access to a vehicle.
At home, different story - look, folks, I happen to be all of 5'6" and about 130lbs soakin wet, and badly disabled besides, I don't really have the option of engaging physically or running away, and without my glasses on I can't hardly see a damn thing or very far, which discards most of the options damned fools arguing against self-defense take for granted, not to mention if cornered in my HOME, imma stand to the very last spitting breath, or I'd never be able to look at myself in the mirror again.
So hell yes, my home defense weapon is massive overkill, given the fact that I am NOT physically able, large and muscular, clear sighted or fleet of foot, not to mention gettin old besides.
And THAT is what I am compensating for, the simple fact that I am a civilized person and by no means capable of going mano-a-mano with a young, tough thug and having that be an even contest, not to mention I am not STUPID enough to give a bad guy a fair fight just because some ignorant morons ego thinks I should, hell no.
Being able to put 20 rounds of single-O buckshot down the hallway ensures that I will never *need* to, even if the perp has brought all his friends to help him intimidate me and carry away the loot, which is rare, but as damn fools do their level best to serve up their fellow man disarmed on a platter thanks to a downright idiotic belief that words on paper are some kind of magic force (kinda like their hellspawned religions), it ain't gonna be rare for long.
My weapons, and my possession of them, are expressly and wholly for the purpose of defending my life, property and rights from those who would take them from me by force, and other than keeping in practice with function, operation and safety, that is the ONLY thing they are, and ever will be, used for.
And if you have a problem with THAT - then I have a problem with YOU.
Cause it means your intentions are something other than you pretend them to be.
There's three kinds of people in the world...
There is the man who says he is out to take what is yours.
He is a businessman, and can be dealt with by demanding so
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The image of a peaceful, responsible, competent gun owner isn't promoted a lot.
I'm a victim of this association myself.
It took me a while to recognize this instant association as wrong, and it always takes work to move beyond it when thinking about subjects like this.
Once I did, my opinions about gun control changed, as well.
And this bugs me quite a bit - the whole "the way they're portrayed means it's okay to think that way about guns and people who like them."
Tell ya what: try applying that logic to black people, and see where that gets you. Sure, they're portrayed a certain way in the media, so does that make it okay to be bigoted against them?
Just curious. It's interesting to watch people who supposedly have no prejudices actually reveal what theirs are. And we ALL have prejudices of some sort or another. I guess for some, it's just prejudice against gun owners that's okay and acceptable...
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.
They are afraid of you."
Many people are afraid of people with guns - for several good reasons: drive-bys, car-jackings, mart-robberies ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Now, for some reason I can't understand, you sound as though you begrudge me these simple pleasures. I can't fathom why.
It's not that I begrudge you your habits. Other than the nap in nowhere (I like that idea), nothing you said sounds remotely interesting to me. You like it, cool. But I don't see how because you like to do this - an assault weapon is NEEDED. If you enjoy it - hey, that's none of my concern. But I'm not going to care if you have to step down to a smaller weapon, either.
And I guess, from your description, you'd fall under my definition of "gun nut". Don't get me wrong - I don't mean that as an insult. I have friends who I would call gun nuts, as well. But the scenario you just presented doesn't have anything to do with the constitution, or defense, as was the topic at hand. It was strictly recreational - and as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun.
"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
It is hard to agree with 100% of people 100% of the time, especially here in RWED. But I love the way everyone has stated their views and opinion in this thread.
I understand the fear of people without knowledge and experience with weapons, violence, de-escalation, and downright fear of what some people are willing to do to others for their own personal gain and pleasure. I commend any man or woman who feels whole heartedly that they do not need weapons, only the words and spirit of peace and goodwill between men.
Honestly, one of my wishes for this life is to be able to transcend into a being of that manner. But for now I must settle with what I have. That is the knowledge and experience that unless we defend ourselves we will be pacified and lulled into a sense of false security. Humans are not evolved enough to accept that peace for ourselves yet. Our bodies still cling to more primal and visceral conditioning. I am lucky to still be relativey young, healthy, conditioned for threats and posative response, and happen to be fairly large in built and strength. Regardless I still have to agree with being in my home or with my family. One or two threats can be talked out, then handled physically as a last resort. I'd rather not shoot someone. It's not a ruined day or just a bunch of paperwork. There are lingering effects that never go away. But the safety of my loved ones far outweighs the life of one who wishes to do them harm. This stands true with my neighbors, someone walking down the street, children of my community. If it is the last resort than so be it. Before that I am a member of this community, a mandated reporter, and a human being concerned with the well being of others. I honestly gave up caring what people think of my decsision to be a gun owner. People who judge others according to what other people say or lump people together by demographic are just sad. It is improper threat asessment and hurts more than it helps.
ADD:
Kwicko- +1
Rue- Those people are criminals who will have weapons regardless if I have mine or not. The differance is they are less reluctant to enter a home of most people because THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING SHOT.
Storymark- It is getting harder and harder to listen to your argument since you keep misdefining "Assault Weapon". Educate yourself then make a logical argument. I'll keep my sporting arms while the sheeple cry out for the banning of "Assault Weapons". NEWFLASH! They are already illicit destructive devices to the regular citizen.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
That's almost worth a giggle, Rue.
Could you really see me doin any of those things, doll ?
It'd be as ludicrous as THIS.
http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=59&qid=471&PHPSESSID=2fafed0ec8
f50f25f609217fda2c2f48
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Storymark, you apparently missed the last part of my post, which briefly dealt with the other benefit of gun ownership.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you about the dozens of times I killed people to protect my family. This is because, very thankfully, I never had to shoot anyone. I hope I never will. But these guns that put holes in aluminum cans also do quite a good job of putting holes in people.
Let us put aside that, though, for now. You said some things that bother me quite a bit.
1) "I'm not going to care if you have to step down to a smaller weapon, either."
What exactly do you consider a 'smaller weapon' and do you have any conception of how 'big' the weapons are that I described to you? Do you know anything about the firearms I own? Is it the 'size' of the weapon that troubles you, and if so, what 'size' is acceptable in your philosophy? I note with interest that we are no longer discussing 'assault' weapons but rather 'size.'
2) "as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun."
I agree that there are more things to worry about than my fun. I worry every day about my freedoms, and the freedoms of others. I worry that people will try to take away my freedoms so that they can have the illusion of safety.
I worry about historical fencers having their swords outlawed for the public good.
I worry about adults being told that they can't carry pocket folding knives, because they might spontaneously decide to cut someone's throat with it.
I worry about people being told that they can't have a car engine that has more than 100 horsepower, because anything higher than that is excessively powerful.
I worry about martial arts being outlawed, because some people use the techniques to beat up other people.
I worry about pornography being outlawed, because it might corrupt children, and because some men get addicted to those 36DD's.
I worry about violence in movies being outlawed, because some people get excited when watching it, and go out and hurt someone else.
I worry about big black dildos being outlawed, because someone beat someone else to death with one.
I worry about a world where the only way people can feel safe is to remove all the things that might hurt them.
I worry about you, Storymark, and I worry about your vote. I worry that you want to shrink or remove my guns because you don't see the importance of my 'fun' when you should be concerning yourself instead over the importance of my 'freedoms.'
Please don't let your fear empower you to take away my freedoms.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I worry about you, Storymark, and I worry about your vote. I worry that you want to shrink or remove my guns because you don't see the importance of my 'fun' when you should be concerning yourself instead over the importance of my 'freedoms.'
Funny. I keep hearing the whole thing about size compensation and phallic symbols but those arguments seem to be coming from people without a phallus or possibly who have "size" issues of their own.
Also funny, my AR15 (which stands for Armalite, the company that made the weapon, not "Assault Rifle") uses a .224 caliber bullet. It is one of the smallest calibers used for modern centerfire rifles. Other common small calibers are .17 (as big as a bb/pellet from most pellet guns)and .20. How much smaller do you want the gun to be. I think making guns bigger is more logical. It is much harder to conceal hunting rifle than it is to conceal a handgun. Centerfire handguns take larger caliber bullets than many rifles. They are just shorter with a slower burning powder.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
...as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun.
Such as...? Seems the Founding Fathers had a word or two to say about "the pursuit of happiness", didn't they? Sounds like fun was one of the things they wanted most to protect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.
They are afraid of you."
Many people are afraid of people with guns - for several good reasons: drive-bys, car-jackings, mart-robberies ...
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Rue, are you afraid of cars, and do you think they should be outlawed because people break the law with them?
What you are describing (drive-bys, carjackings, robberies) are CRIMES, whether or not there's a gun involved. And there are many, many laws on the books already that severely up the penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime. What you're proposing is like treating dandruff by decapitation - it's a bit of overkill.
I am physically capable (although not mentally capable, thank goodness) of murdering someone with a hammer, or a scarf, or a guitar string, or a shoe. Should all of those things be outlawed?
What I'm trying to say is that the problem isn't that you have people murdering people with guns - it's that you have people wanting to murder people in the first place. Taking away their guns won't cure them of the urge, it will just make them find different weapons.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Storymark, you apparently missed the last part of my post, which briefly dealt with the other benefit of gun ownership.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you about the dozens of times I killed people to protect my family. This is because, very thankfully, I never had to shoot anyone. I hope I never will. But these guns that put holes in aluminum cans also do quite a good job of putting holes in people.
Let us put aside that, though, for now. You said some things that bother me quite a bit.
1) "I'm not going to care if you have to step down to a smaller weapon, either."
What exactly do you consider a 'smaller weapon' and do you have any conception of how 'big' the weapons are that I described to you? Do you know anything about the firearms I own? Is it the 'size' of the weapon that troubles you, and if so, what 'size' is acceptable in your philosophy? I note with interest that we are no longer discussing 'assault' weapons but rather 'size.'
2) "as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun."
I agree that there are more things to worry about than my fun. I worry every day about my freedoms, and the freedoms of others. I worry that people will try to take away my freedoms so that they can have the illusion of safety.
I worry about historical fencers having their swords outlawed for the public good.
I worry about adults being told that they can't carry pocket folding knives, because they might spontaneously decide to cut someone's throat with it.
I worry about people being told that they can't have a car engine that has more than 100 horsepower, because anything higher than that is excessively powerful.
I worry about martial arts being outlawed, because some people use the techniques to beat up other people.
I worry about pornography being outlawed, because it might corrupt children, and because some men get addicted to those 36DD's.
I worry about violence in movies being outlawed, because some people get excited when watching it, and go out and hurt someone else.
I worry about big black dildos being outlawed, because someone beat someone else to death with one.
I worry about a world where the only way people can feel safe is to remove all the things that might hurt them.
I worry about you, Storymark, and I worry about your vote. I worry that you want to shrink or remove my guns because you don't see the importance of my 'fun' when you should be concerning yourself instead over the importance of my 'freedoms.'
Please don't let your fear empower you to take away my freedoms.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
You keep going back to fear. Let me make this clear to you - I'm not afraid of guns. I just don't agree on the nessecity of them. You may disagree, but it's a dick move to simply ignore what was stated, and keep spouting the same shite.
I also already addressed defense. A handgun or shotgun is going to be far more useful for self defense, since most cases of self defense gun use are not long protracted gunfights, and are quick exchanges, usueally at close range. Which I think answers the question about size. You want a high-powered pistol handy for defense, cool. You want to use an AR-15 for defense, again, I don't care, but it seems a hell of a lot less usefull in any situation you are likely to face, and I don't mind if they're banned, because I don't see a NEED for them.
Sure, if the Zombie apocalypse comes, or Wulfy's Civil War wet-dream, a weapon like that might be more usefull, but so would a tank. Why shouldn't they be street-legal, too?
Once again - I'm not advocating a ban. But I won't be upset if there is one, either. You may not like my position, but you are going to have to live with it.
"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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
Funny. I keep hearing the whole thing about size compensation and phallic symbols but those arguments seem to be coming from people without a phallus or possibly who have "size" issues of their own.
Also funny, my AR15 (which stands for Armalite, the company that made the weapon, not "Assault Rifle") uses a .224 caliber bullet. It is one of the smallest calibers used for modern centerfire rifles. Other common small calibers are .17 (as big as a bb/pellet from most pellet guns)and .20. How much smaller do you want the gun to be. I think making guns bigger is more logical. It is much harder to conceal hunting rifle than it is to conceal a handgun. Centerfire handguns take larger caliber bullets than many rifles. They are just shorter with a slower burning powder.
Yup and yup. I guess I must be conflicted about my size envy or shortcomings - I like guns, but I drive a very small car. Could it be that overall I'm pretty happy with my size (I'm 6'8", 250 lbs, size 16 shoes, if that helps), and can't for the life of me understand why companies like "Extenze" stay in business, unless it's off of preying on peoples' insecurities in that area.
But for the record, Storymark, please explain to us what downsizing you'd like to see in our guns. An "assault weapon" is already, by definition, shorter than a regular hunting rifle or a main battle rifle. It's smaller by design, for use in close-quarters combat, such as door-to-door situations. So you want us to use something SMALLER, something EASIER to carry and conceal, something EASIER to carry a whole shitload of ammo for? Is that what you're looking for?
What about something like this?
It's smaller than a typical assault rifle, both in overall size and in cartridge and bullet size. Would something like that make you happy? 'Cuz I'd sure like one, but at around $1800, they ain't cheap. The "bullpup" design is growing on me, though - it keeps the 20" barrel of a longer weapon (and its accuracy), but puts it all in a much shorter package for clearing rooms and doorways quickly.
So when you say you want to downsize our fun, what is it that you mean, exactly?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Rue- Those people are criminals who will have weapons regardless if I have mine or not. The differance is they are less reluctant to enter a home of most people because THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING SHOT."
They let their bullets do the entering while they stay in their cars.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But for the record, Storymark, please explain to us what downsizing you'd like to see in our guns. An "assault weapon" is already, by definition, shorter than a regular hunting rifle or a main battle rifle. It's smaller by design, for use in close-quarters combat, such as door-to-door situations. So you want us to use something SMALLER, something EASIER to carry and conceal, something EASIER to carry a whole shitload of ammo for? Is that what you're looking for?
Jesus, I've said 3 times I meant handguns. Do you people read?
I know a lot of guys with AR's. And the first thing they all want to do is convert it to full-auto.
"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
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But for the record, Storymark, please explain to us what downsizing you'd like to see in our guns. An "assault weapon" is already, by definition, shorter than a regular hunting rifle or a main battle rifle. It's smaller by design, for use in close-quarters combat, such as door-to-door situations. So you want us to use something SMALLER, something EASIER to carry and conceal, something EASIER to carry a whole shitload of ammo for? Is that what you're looking for?
Jesus, I've said 3 times I meant handguns. Do you people read?
I know a lot of guys with AR's. And the first thing they all want to do is convert it to full-auto.
"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."
Sorry, cross-posted with your last response.
Okay, so you're fine with handguns. Okay, then. So I can legally get a 30- or 45-round magazine for my Ruger; is that cool with you, since it's still only a handgun and not an assault weapon?
Seriously, I'm just trying to see how much thought you've put into this issue, or if you're just regurgitating talking points from the left. And hey, I'm a leftist (except when it comes to firearms), so I tend to recognize the talking points...
Personally, I don't see the NEED for 250-mph street-legal cars, but they make 'em and sell 'em (and a guy in Texas even got a 242mph speeding ticket in one!). And I don't see the NEED for 96-inch plasma TVs, 4-core Intel computers, or the 64-ounce Super Big Gulp, but such things exist, legally, whether I like them or not. And some of them kill people. Shouldn't they be outlawed, or at the very least downsized? I'm not saying ban Cokes or anything, but let's put a size limit on them, eh? And if you can't outright ban the automobile, let's put speed limiters on them that won't let them go over 80mph (the highest posted speed limit in the nation), and that will turn you in if you try to go faster than that or try to tamper with the limiter in any way.
Sound fair? Is that the nation we want to be?
Mike
Edited to add:
Quote:
I know a lot of guys with AR's. And the first thing they all want to do is convert it to full-auto.
Then you know a lot of guys who are idiots and who, if they do convert them without the proper tax stamps, Class III licenses and paperwork (which they can't get), are also federal felons. Why aren't you turning them in?
You CAN legally own a fully-automatic machine gun, or even a silenced handgun or sawed-off shotgun in this country, but you have to pony up cash for the right tax stamp and file the appropriate paperwork, and even then you can't MAKE a new machine gun; you can only buy one that already existed prior to 1968. Them's the federal regs, baby. Thank Tricky Dick Nixon for that particular law.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
a weapon like that might be more usefull, but so would a tank. Why shouldn't they be street-legal, too?
Cause they chew up the asphalt, causing needless damage to the street.
Wheeled APCs are street legal though, if you have a proper set of lights (headlamps, tail and brake, signals) and your emissions system meets state and local regulations.
Mikey, tell me that's not a Steyr AUG yer drooling over.. *twitch*, always hated them, too much recoil and not so accurate under field conditions.
Hmmm...
Well, if you're unconcerned about the Constitutional Rights of others...
Then do not be surprised if others don't give a rats ass about yours.
Me, I stand up for them even for my enemies, because those rights are UNIVERSAL or they're pointless.
But I can and will be disgusted by cowardly little milquetoast quislings who'll surrender everyone else's without a blink, but scream like a child throwing a tantrum if their own are endangered.
-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,
Storymark, it sounds as though you want to keep handguns, because they are useful in self defense. But you don't care if rifles go away.
You also want to keep shotguns, because you perceive a defense value in them.
But rifles can go away.
Because you don't see the 'need' for rifles.
And you've stated that you're not afraid of these rifles. You just don't care about them, and therefore don't care if they are outlawed.
I misunderstood the difference between us.
I don't play golf, Storymark. I don't see a 'need' for golf.
But I'll be first in line to protest if someone outlaws golf clubs.
When they came for the rifles,
I remained silent;
I was not a rifleman.
When they locked up the swords,
I remained silent;
I was not a swordsman.
When they came for the pornography,
I did not speak out;
I was not a pornographer.
When they came for the arrows,
I remained silent;
I was not an archer.
When they came for my hobby,
No one spoke out for me.
Special thanks to Pastor Martin Niemöller
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, Frem, it's a Steyr. Haven't fired one, just cradled it lovingly in my arms... :) I was amazed, though, at how easily it came up to a ready position, and how easy it was to sight through that tiny scope keeping both eyes open. Very sweet-feeling, to be sure. Wouldn't pay the money, though, because I think I'd be better served with a clutch of other weapons.
And if I feel the need for a bullpup design, I'll opt for one of the AK bullpups, since I'm already invested in the 7.62x39 caliber...
Quote:
Me, I stand up for them even for my enemies, because those rights are UNIVERSAL or they're pointless.
EGG-ZACH-LEE!! I stand up for the rights of terrorists and child molesters, because the worst of us deserve the same constitutional protections as the best of us. I may despise your actions, but I will not deny you of your rights without due process. And I won't deny your right OF due process, either.
I defend the rights of the worst, because at any moment, on a political whim, you or I could be thrown into that category.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lest we ever forget...
First They Came...
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
- Martin Neimoller
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reasons have been stated and I've been done trying to change peoples minds for a long while. Like you I am happy with my build and size (I love my 15.5 and 16 Bellevilles). And as cool as they are the .458 SOCCOM, .450 Bushmaster, and .50 Beowulf are too large and impractical for my needs. I'll stick with my .223 because it is light and utilitarian. And I am not a tacticool guy. I just got the AR with an ACOG as a practical utility rifle for a very good price. I actually demo'd the AK for the guy I got my AR from and he loved it. I prefer Soviet calibers (they are pretty awesome) but need to save up for another.
Sorry, back on track. The argument has been made and for some "Assault Weapons" are not for some regardless of how horribly defined they have become. I've demonstrated such weapons to ignorant folk and they were much less intimidated after seeing their actual capacity for destruction rather than what they'd seen on TV or were told in the news.
So real quick, everyone knows not to believe the things they see on TV. Believe what you can see right before your eyes. Quit feeding into media hype until you have seen for yourself the actual effects of such weapons. Look at the definitions provided and question the terms that "authority" has placed on such things.
I hope that anyone looking into the possible re-emergance of an "assault weapon" ban will look objectively at both sides.
20/20
Obama
Chris Rock
I don't completely agree or disagree with all these videos. Just food for thought.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
And again, THEY ARE CRIMINALS and COWARDS. Regardless if "The Man" says they can't have weapons a criminal does not care. I could sit here talking about all the criminals I've known since I was a small child but like many other things, some of y'all just don't care about the truth.
And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.
AK's have been made in Afghanistan and Pakistan for quite some time and they didn't have power tools and machines. When by hand I mean it quite literally in the way primitive man scavanged materials for their tools and weapons.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
Hell, I used to make zip guns (or as I called 'em, "bang sticks") when I was 9-10 years old.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here is another product that will hit the underground and introduce a smaller Black Market into a new era. Sure some people will get caught and go to prison. But like the lillicit drug trade (that includes over the counter and prescription drugs) it will just get bigger, be unregulated, and untaxed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
Just some general points before I get back to work:
Cars are used to primarily transport people and things. That people die is incidental. Guns are used to shoot things. That people die is - rather the point. When I can drive a gun, I'll say you have an argument. Otherwise your analogy is fatally flawed.
As to an 'absolute right' to bear arms, I haven't heard anyone saying a baby should be allowed to play with the trigger of a nuclear bomb. It's not an absolute right - there are limits even if they are unacknowledged. The better discussion would be what those limits should be.
Finally, owning a gun isn't going to keep bullets out of your home or car or away from you if you're walking down the street. It's not a magic shield, you know.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are right on all accounts. But it is the same with radiation from electronics, fast food, and automobiles. Reckless driving and DUI is not incidental. Over eating is not incidental. Consumer education is not incidental. I think you yourself fail to realize that very point and opt instead to exaggerate your point rather than find true logic in the issue.
Nevermind that cars and stupid drivers kill way more people every year than people. And before someone makes the argument that maybe I have no experience with gun violence I will make this point. Other than the situations where I was willingly in the fray I have lost people here in my rural home to gun violence. I have lost friends and family. I have seen the toll on men, women, and children due to gun violence. No one can tell me the details that I already have seen first hand from such things. I have become numb to a degree in terms of pain and loss. But I never fail to recognize the fact that other people still have accute sensitivity to these things. I am not a middle class white male that has been offered all the (supposed) benefits that demographic recieves. (That whole thing is BS and I actually pity and support the middle class white male)
If there be a true emotional issue to this discussion, let it flow. True feeling is more substantial than errant remarks and misspent anger.
I think ignorance is truer an "Assault Weapon" than the discussion at hand.
Fools spray and pray.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.
That might make a better argument if criminals tended to use assault weapons. But that's not the case.
"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
Quote:
Cars are used to primarily transport people and things. That people die is incidental. Guns are used to shoot things. That people die is - rather the point. When I can drive a gun, I'll say you have an argument. Otherwise your analogy is fatally flawed.
Rue, that's pretty weak; I expect more from you.
A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. That people die from them is incidental, and generally criminal in modern society. Guns kill far fewer people every year than automobiles (and don't even get me started on booze and tobacco and their death rates!). And there is no mention whatsoever of the automobile in the Constitution. So while my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, your right to drive may well be, since it's not a right at all.
When I can hunt with my car, I'll accept that you have a right to one. Otherwise, your analogy is fatally flawed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.
That might make a better argument if criminals tended to use assault weapons. But that's not the case.
"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."
Well, you haven't made ANY case. Criminals don't tend to use assault weapons, and ACTUAL assault weapons are by and large illegal for 99.9% of U.S. citizens, so *I* tend to not use them, either.
So what is your problem with them in the first place?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.
That might make a better argument if criminals tended to use assault weapons. But that's not the case.
"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."
Well, you haven't made ANY case. Criminals don't tend to use assault weapons, and ACTUAL assault weapons are by and large illegal for 99.9% of U.S. citizens, so *I* tend to not use them, either.
So what is your problem with them in the first place?
I don't have one. Christ, reading comprehension is poor in this thread. Never said I had a problem. Said explicitly that I didn't several times.
Okay, for the SLOW: I AM NOT ADVOCATING AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!
Capiche?
Is that clear?
I would not be upset by one, either. But am not advocating one, or trying to justify it. I do have a problem with some gun owners, and their mentality (and reading skills, apparently), but that isn't the same thing. Please, please try to actually read what I wrote, and not just assume you know my position.
"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
Do you know anything about concealment, target engagement, or what an actual "assault weapon" is?
I've been wondering about the latter.
Just because a person (or criminal) has something it doesn't mean they are going to use it. When I drive to SLC I don't take my AR, just the 1911 (.45) and the Ruger MK11 (.22rimfire). I could care less if an officer asks me if I have weapon. I tell him, "Yes. It is in the back seat in full view with a loaded magazine in it but the chamber is empty." He runs my ID and sends me on my way.
A convicted criminal, especially a convicted felon, does not want to give law enforcement cause to search. Concealable weapons are their go to weapons. When the need arises they do have them. I don't say this in a paranoid or ill informed by the media sort of way. I've seen them.
The problem is some criminals do have actual "Assault Weapons", not the terribly defined sporting arms that American gun owners posess. They have actual weapons capable of firing fully automatic. Even if it turns out we end up turning in our guns, who is to tell them to turn in theirs?
Just because few choose to use them does not mean they don't have them.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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
Just remember...
COVER and ALIGHNMENT, AYE, AYE, SIR!....
Runs thru my head everytime I go up to Crooklyn...
anyways....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME