 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Gun ban - yep already
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Steve in Idaho Date: 19 Nov 08 - 09:58 AM For those who thought it was way down the road - copied from another site but it's short - November 17, 2008 Assault Weapons Ban Introduced...by Five R.I.N.O.s Define R.I.N.O.: A Republican In Name Only. Examples of the type of Republican covered under this definition are: Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL] Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL] Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ] Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT] Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE] These five supposed Republican are nothing more than jackasses in elephant's clothing. Rep. Mark Kirk has introduced a bill, H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008, which would "reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act." The bill has been co-sponsored by the other four jackasses listed above. All of them claim to be Republicans. All of them need to leave the party. Seriously. Go. We don't need your kind anymore. It is this kind of stuff that lost the Republican majority in Congress. No, not this particular issue, but the failure to adhere to Republican values in general. If you want to behave like a gun-grabbing Democrat, go sit on their side. It is better that the Republicans be in the minority, but true to conservative values than to be in the majority with no clear values at all. The problem with gun violence isn't that law abiding citizens have access to assault weapons (whatever that means.) It's that criminals use them to commit crimes. Read that last sentence. Commit crimes is the key part of that sentence. Having these guns be illegal will not limit the criminal's access to them. It will only make them better armed than their victims. I found out about this through the Jawa Report, who saw it on The Arsenal. Tip of the hat to both of them. By the way, the phone number to Rep. Kirk's office is 202-225-4835. Let him know how you feel about his actions. I also noticed that the UK folks are now losing their rights to some other weapons - pretty good demonstration going on there - Lord Bless ya Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: katlaughing Date: 19 Nov 08 - 10:10 AM They introduced this bill in June while their prez was still in office, as he still is...has nothing to do with President-Elect Obama, at this point. You might want to check for more balanced sources. Click Here That link has a copy of the bill which spells out exactly what they mean by "assault weapons." Finally, do you not see any strange juxtaposition in your "blessing" while projecting an image of a rather angry man waving an assault weapon, even if it be "virtually?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Nov 08 - 10:21 AM Good reply, Kat. REAL good. THIS Christian will defend her home and property quite well with her legal handgun, thank you very much, IF the Lord actually prompts me to fire when the day comes. An assault rifle-- that's for those who lack aim, a calm eye, foresight, and a plan-- not to mention the spiritual gift of Discernment. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Barry Finn Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:03 AM Steve, what's your reasoning against banning assult rifes? I just can't fathom their use for the general public, of course I grew up in the inner city where there were more firearms than I've ever seen in the past 20 yrs of country living. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Greg F. Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:12 AM It is this kind of stuff [a bill to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act] that lost the Republican majority in Congress... No, Steve, its YOUR kind of lunatic, fear-mongering, unthinking NRA-style bullshit that helped lose the Republican majority in Congress. Thankfully, most of the U.S. is getting heartily sick of it- as the recent election indicates. With any luck, the Republicans have learned a lesson & are taking steps to once more become a mainstream party instead of the resort of fundagelicals & right-wing nutcases. No rational human being needs (or would want) an assault rifle. And no, I'm not one of those "gun-grabbing Democrats"- I own long guns, handguns, black-powder weapons both muzzle-loading & cartridge. And I see no problem with sensible firearms legislation. The best (only decent?) thing George Bush senior ever did was send back his NRA Life Membership Card & tell them to shove it. (As did I some six months later). Lord Help ya, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,heric Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:17 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,heric Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:22 AM Suppoting assualt rifle ownership will never get them back into power: Ship of fools Nov 13th 2008 From The Economist print edition How likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses? There are glimmers of hope. Business conservatives worry that the party has lost the business vote. Moderates complain that the Republicans are becoming the party of "white-trash pride". . . . The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution. . . . John Stuart Mill once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the "stupid party" now belongs to the Tories' transatlantic cousins, the Republicans. There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party's defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South. http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12599247&fsrc=nwlgafree |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: pdq Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:29 AM It seem to me that the term "assault weapon" is a public relations trick. It is a meaningless term that makes a certain group of people angry. Politicians who want to look like they are working against violence must ban something so they ban a meaningless category of guns. They should be working to end street gangs, especially the inner city types that deal drugs and guns. Automatic weapons were banned from the general public in 1934, but most people, when asked to describe an "assault weapon", will describe a machine gun (=automatic weapon). The news media help keep this impression alive because it suits their political agenda, at least the 90% who want guns banned. John Kerry, during the 2004 campaign, borrowed a set of hunting clothes and a rifle for a goofy photo op. It was to present a visual impression that Kerry was a "regular guy" to the working public. The gun he borrowed had a raised area on the stock that made it technically an illegal assault weapon in many parts of the country. That's how vague and meaningless the term "assault weapon" is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,heric Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:30 AM "heartily sick of it" yes we are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:55 AM I agree that the need is to enforce the laws we have. I could care less about an AK-47, I have owned firearms my entire life and licensed to conceal carry in 26 states due to the interstate agreements on permits. (and I never ever carry a firearm , never -although licensed to do so). I only took the permits to make it easier to do some target shooting which I don't do anymore anyway. In NY it is a 5 year felony to carry a handgun without a license. But you can go to Buffalo any day of the week and see street gangs with the weapons bulging from their pants and no one bothers to arrest them. Nothing makes sense. They keep passing laws they don't enforce law after law using it as an excuse that they are doing something about it. The violence continues. Also go to a gun show, see an AK-47 for sale, and on the table next to it for 8 bucks is a manual to convert it to fully auto is insane also. I would give up every firearm I ever owned if I thought it would make the country safer. I hate assult weapons, don't know why anyone would want one. Gald to see them go, but before any more laws, lets enforce the ones we have and go after those commiting the crimes. Canada per person has more firearms than the US. Gun violence, almost nill compared to the states, why is that? When someone can figure out why maybe we would have a handle on the violence instead of doing nothing but pass laws they won't enforce. In the meantime want to ban weapons like an AK-47, I don't care, but it will accomplish nothing until we get to the root of the problems that cause the violence |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: bobad Date: 19 Nov 08 - 12:09 PM Canada per person has more firearms than the US. According to this site: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl gun ownership per person in the US is 3.3 times greater than in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: pdq Date: 19 Nov 08 - 12:11 PM "...on the table next to it for 8 bucks is a manual to convert it to fully auto..." Maybe so, but buying the pamphlet is not a crime. Civil Liberties types have made sure that most distateful literature cannot be prohibited. Buying the AK-47 is not a crime in most of the US. It is just another rifle that fires one round each time you depress the trigger. Not much different that the "6 shooter" in the 1800s. Crime and not committed until the AK-47 is converted to automatic (=machine gun status) or until it is used to threaten people, hurt people or damage property. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 12:25 PM bobad, I didn't know that, from the stats on one of the TV shows they said it was higher, I believe you. Oh I know I think I got it from the bowling for Colombine movie where he said it was higher. PDQ you are correct, just don't know why people would buy it unless they intend to make it fully auto don't you think? People can legally own a machine gun, you need a special permit but you can get one. I knew a guy in PA with a FFL license to own one back in the 70's who had a fully auto thompson and would rake an old car he parked on the back side of his property. But he was legal and wouldn't hurt a fly just enjoyed it for some reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 19 Nov 08 - 12:28 PM I'll go along with what Wysi said. If I can't stop whoever or whatever it is with the bolt action rifle and pump shotgun I already own, I doubt having an AR is gonna help a damned bit, 'cause the fucker'll probably be drivin' a tank and they're not gonna let me have a bazooka under any circumstances. Yeah, semi and fully autos are fun to shoot, but ya know what? There's a shootin' range not far from where I live that has all kinds of 'em, perfectly legal and permitted, that they rent by the half-hour. If I feel like my dick's gettin' too small I can go blast hell out of targets over there using their hardware. I don't need to own it myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: George Papavgeris Date: 19 Nov 08 - 12:31 PM "(The AK-47 is)...not much different that the 6 shooter in the 1800s" you say, pdq. Would you send our soldiers to Afghanistan with six-shooters, then? Somehow I don't think so, which makes such a statement appear hypocritical, wouldn't you say? But my main question refers to Steve from Idaho's opening post: In what way is the Bill Mark Kirk introduced indicative of his "not adhering to Republican values"? Please explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 12:36 PM Bobad you are right, but the homicide rate is 2.4x higher in the US. http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm the big question is it because of the higher number of guns or something else. I hear what people are saying about the assult weapons. For me, don't see the need I guess or desire. I don't think it would be a good one to own for deer hunting that I can see. Can't understand why they would sell a manual to convert it to a machine gun on the same table at a gun show. Hey nothing makes sense including the gang members with weapons bulging out of their pants and the police drive on by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Escapee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 12:38 PM Gun-banning politicians are, IMHO, grandstanding charlatans who curry popularity by attacking the straw man " assault weapons" while ignoring the root causes of crime. Ban ignorance and economic injustice if you want to reduce crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,hg Date: 19 Nov 08 - 01:07 PM Many of us old timers know Steve and he has been in and out around here a long time. He is entitled to his opinion. Having said that I will say I am happy to see such a ban. It is moving in the right direction. The world revolves forward. I'm also against handguns. I have mixed feelings about hunting weapons. I know many individuals still enjoy or need to hunt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: katlaughing Date: 19 Nov 08 - 01:16 PM Ban ignorance and economic injustice if you want to reduce crime...that's something the GOP has ignored for years. It would work, but they would all cry about socialism/communism/ad naseumisms for years to come. I do not remember my dad's six-shooter shooting like a automatic 9mm I had. One had to cock his six-shooter, then pull the trigger, each time. That's even how they used to show in the old tv shows, called "fanning" if memory serves. Not so on the 9 mil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: kendall Date: 19 Nov 08 - 01:17 PM I AM A STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, damn caps lock!but I am unable to understand why anyone needs an assault rifle. Paranoia? small willy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: MaineDog Date: 19 Nov 08 - 01:29 PM Barry, if you use your assault rifle correctly, there will be no witnesses, that's why! MD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: jeffp Date: 19 Nov 08 - 01:58 PM Civil Liberties types have made sure that most distateful literature cannot be prohibited. Like Madison, Monroe, Adams, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 02:30 PM Geez, I come back from the shooting range to find this! Yes, this morning. With three of my staff, who make up part of the Library's shooting team. Pistols. Semiautomatic .22s, firing at targets 35 feet away today. PAPER targets. It's building self-reliance, self-confidence, pushing them outside their "comfort zones" in a safe manner, and most importantly, welding them into a team. (Two of the people, the Childrens' Librarian and one of the Reference Supervisors, have purchased their own pistols.) And I HAVE a military assault rifle. It's a US Rifle, Caliber 30, Model of 1917, made in mid-May 1918. It will fire six rounds as fast as I can work the bolt and then I have to attach the bayonet and charge. Kat, what you remember is your father using a single-action revolver (one you have to cock each time you shoot). Perhaps the most famous one is the "Colt 45" or "Peacemaker". He might also have been firing a double-action revolve (one where you can make it fire without manually cocking it) as a single-action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: gnu Date: 19 Nov 08 - 02:41 PM I take "assault rifle" to mean a machine pistol in the context that Kendall is talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 02:50 PM Rapaire I have one also, with the original bayonet, but I found trying to bayonet the big buck was a real challange !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Nov 08 - 02:50 PM ...they're not gonna let me have a bazooka under any circumstances.... Oh DARN! Them's out, too? :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: gnu Date: 19 Nov 08 - 03:00 PM Jaysus! If they restrict bazookas, what's next? Bodhrans? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Skivee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 03:22 PM Have deer gotten so tough in Idaho that Steve needs to "pre-tenderize" the meat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 03:27 PM Well, when I go deer or elk hunting I generally shoot the critter with my M-79 grenade launcher (as I've gotten older my shooting aim has been getting worse, so I've accepted by failings) and then, when it's down, I cook 'er up with my flamethrower. One tank shoots a stream of barbecue sauce and the other the napalm to cook it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Skivee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 03:39 PM Rap, doesn't that burn the sauce? ...The flamethrower, not the grenade launcher. My daddy was a deerhunter. I recall that he prefered an AR-15 with NATO rounds and the extended clip. Maybe he liked seeing the deer twitch; but to tell the truth, I got tired of having to eat around all that lead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 03:42 PM Would someone be so kind as to define "assault weapon" for me? Please provide some detail. Is it the type of round? Muzzle velocity? Appearance? Ammunition/clip capacity? I am sincere in asking this. I know what I consider to be an "assault weapon", but I am curious what it is that those of you in favor of sensible regulation would define it as being. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: kendall Date: 19 Nov 08 - 03:52 PM To me, an assault rifle is a rifle (long gun) that is capable of firing as many rounds as the magazine will hold. The B.A.R. Browning automatic rifle is the one that Clyde Barrow used to kill about a dozen Police officers. They were armed with .38 revolvers. Many of these semi automatic weapons can be made full automatic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:01 PM Big Mick, if it was designed as a fully automatic weapon, to me it is an assaulat rife. I have less a problem with the rifle as I have how easily they can be converted to fully auto again. An 8 dollar manual and a trip to a hardware store, that simple. So to me the problem now becomes a fully auto weapon like the police in Beverly Hills had to face down when those two guys went on the killing spree with the failed bank robbery. They purchased the 100 round drum clips, converted the AK-47 to full auto - used armor piercing rounds and out gunned the police. I have less a problem with the weapon as how easy it is to convert. If they can prevent it permantely before selling it other than saying it is against the law, then it is no more or less a problem then any other semi auto firearm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:03 PM Of course they can, Kendall. We did it in high school with a .22, and even made a 100 round drum magazine for it (and got in BIG trouble for it, oy, you can't BELIEVE the trouble!). "One shot, one deer. Two shots, maybe one deer. Three shots, no deer." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:04 PM So is it the full auto feature to you, Captain? Any hunting rifle "is capable of firing as many rounds as the magazine will hold". And any semi auto will fire as many times as you pull the trigger. And btw, I have fired a B.A.R. on a number of occasions. I have a great deal of respect for those lads that humped that heavy ass thing all over Europe and the Pacific. But you could chop down trees with it and dig caves too. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:13 PM You gents, given your knowledge of weaponry, have given predictable answers, and they are correct. The fact that a weapon has a banana clip, or looks menacing, does not make it an assault weapon. And if ballistics were the criteria, hell I can come up with a ton of weapons used in in sport hunting that have better ballistics. Take a 7mm magnum for example. Or a 30-06, for that matter. There is one thing that makes a weapon an "assault weapon". That is the ability to use it full auto. And we have a ton of laws on the books to control who owns full auto weapons. We should be enforcing those laws to the max. We also have all the law we need to prosecute anyone who uses a weapon in the commission of a crime. These folks that talk about "sensible legislation" (not talking about Steve here) need to fess up to their true intent. They would prefer to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. It just isn't going to happen. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: bobad Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:15 PM If anyone bothered to read kat's link, the definition lies therein: DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (29) the following: �(30) The term �semiautomatic assault weapon� means-- �(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-- �(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); �(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; �(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); �(iv) Colt AR-15; �(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; �(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; �(vii) Steyr AUG; �(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and �(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; �(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- �(i) a folding or telescoping stock; �(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; �(iii) a bayonet mount; �(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and �(v) a grenade launcher; �(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- �(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; �(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; �(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; �(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and �(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and �(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- �(i) a folding or telescoping stock; �(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; �(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and �(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.�. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:28 PM Those were the impositions of the anti gun lobby. I could use those definitions to ban an awful lot of hunting weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:29 PM Yeah, doze dere. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: heric Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:38 PM Well there you go. I need a semiautomatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and a grenade launcher. Thanks, bobad! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:40 PM bobad, I need you to tell me, after reading all of that, what it is to you that makes those weapons "assault weapons". I need all you folks that embrace this stuff not to quote law here. I need you to define for me what it is about those weapons that makes them assault weapons in your mind. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: bobad Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:46 PM I'm not into guns at all, never saw or had the need to own one, so don't have the knowledge to expound on the finer points of defining assault weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:48 PM So then you admit that your intent is to do away with the private ownership of all weapons? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: artbrooks Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:51 PM Mick, I'm not a hunter (recently), and I know that a person can hunt with a military weapon (I remember hunting deer in the Korean DMZ with an M-14), but I have trouble visualizing a hunting weapon that includes two of these criteria: B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and �(v) a grenade launcher; That is what an "assault weapon" is, according to the bill under discussion - there are separate, but similar, definitions for automatic pistols and shotguns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:03 PM Art, I only used the hunting weapons reference above to point out that the definitions are wrong and overly broad. This debate isn't about whether or not a gun is used for hunting. Several of my weapons are simply for the sport of target shooting. My handguns are for the sport and for personal protection. What I am trying to do in this discussion is to point out to folks that take the "assault weapon" approach is that they a) don't even know what constitutes an "assault weapon", and b) really have the agenda of removing weapons (without regard to what their legal use is) from the hands of responsible folks who own them. And none of this will result in the supposed result of reducing crimes or violence in our society. That, as one person pointed out, can only happen when one solves the problem of lack of hope and economic opportunity. I just want folks to be honest and quit using code words. "Assault weapons" is a code which allows otherwise well intentioned folks to not really think through the problem of violence and crime in our society. It is more of the debate and intellectual discourse being done through the use of cliche' and code words. We must solve the problems of the average family, urban and rural, in creating and maintaining a decent lifestyle for their families. We must provide hope for our young folks. All these other arguments, especially this one, just get in the way of real progress. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: bobad Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:06 PM So then you admit that your intent is to do away with the private ownership of all weapons? I have absolutely no power to influence anyone with my vision of utopia but if I was given the choice to live in a weaponised or non-weaponised society, I would definitely choose the latter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: artbrooks Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:19 PM While I generally agree with your argument, saying that the term "assault weapon" is overly broad may be erroneous in the context of this particular discussion. We started out by discussing a specific piece of legislation which contains a definition of assault weapons. People then went off on a tangent, saying, in effect, "what is an assault weapon?" and "any hunting rifle can be considered an assault weapon". If we want to discuss whether or not a particular type of weapon, as defined, should be available for unrestricted ownership, that's fine. Saying that a person who advocates banning assault weapons, and I think you are implying that this is somehow a code for banning all firearms, is really trying to avoid thinking "through the problem of violence and crime in our society" is a pretty far stretch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: heric Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:23 PM We're not allowed to use the legal definition of assault rifle but are supposed to debate you about what constitues an assault rifle? You make strict rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:29 PM ok, I must be scating around my point so here it is. I own an arsenal of guns. Hunted and fished my whole life. I don't really care if people own a "assault rifle". I think they do not enforce the laws we already have and any ban is like everything else, won't enforce it either... my point on the weapon itself, I have no use for them for hunting or otherwise, and it doesn't make sense to me to sell a weapon that a child can convert to fully auto in 6 minutes. Just my take. As far as power goes, yea my .338 or 06 has far more power, if someone shoots you with a .22 or an AK-47 dead is still dead and bad guys are bad guys if they only had a rock to club you to death with they will find a way. Law abiding people will never be the problem. But when a bad guy can convert and AK-47 to full auto and walk out of a gun show with with 5 100 round drum clips and armour piercing ammo yah that probably is not cool. But hey no new laws will change anything since if you a bad guy and want a firearm just go to any city block. I am sure someone will sell one on the street. They all seem to be carrying without regard to the law and the law has no desire to arrest them. So why no let them have a machine gun I guess |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:30 PM Art, I do not believe it is a far stretch at all. And I began by asking these folks to tell me what it is that turns something from a firearm that is used for legitimate purposes and turns it into an assault weapon for which the implied argument is that there is no legitimate use. I would respect the arguments much more, if there was honesty in the arguments. As to the definitions given, if that is all the discussion is, then I reject the definition. As to the definitions you cited, let me ask you another question. You and I grew up in roughly the same era. Did you ever hunt with a surplus weapon? The first rifle I hunted with was a surplus M1. It had a bayonet lug on it. I also had a surplus 30 cal. carbine. I bought a paratrooper stock (Korean era collapsible) from the surplus store. I had killed deer with the weapon, and then put the stock on it just for grins. Was it now an "assault weapon"? The point is that folks are avoiding the real issues in this debate in favor of a non issue that feels good, yet won't resolve the problems they are looking to resolve. And bobad, if you could live in the society you described, what would you do with marauding animals, and people who would do you harm? I don't think the world you seem to envision has ever existed anywhere. Mick |
