The Assault Weapons Ban
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 17:22
VIEWED: 10930
PAGE 10 of 17
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