 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Gun ban - yep already
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:37 PM So my semiautomatic hunting rifle COULD have a grenade launcher as long as it didn't have any of the rest? The M-79 grenade launcher was/is a single-shot weapon capable of firing 40mm flare, HE, flechette, and other rounds. But it's not, by these definitions, an assault weapon. But an M-1 rifle, which has bayonet lugs, can also be used to fire rifle grenades and so it would be? I think they need something more to define "assault weapon" than the outward appearance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: heric Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:38 PM I thought this discussion was about whether five named Republicans are nothing more than jackasses in elephant's clothing. It must have morphed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:39 PM Big Mick My .06 is an old military gun perfect for deer hunting. Yes it is a military rifle "assult weapon of the past" but you and I cannot make a machine gun out of it in 5 minutes. That is the difference. Do I care if a law abiding citizen has a machine gun. No I would not. Do I care if one of the gang members do for their drive by .. yah .. all I am saying is if they enforce the laws we already have then I have no issue with them. I have no issue with good people owning any gun they want. The problem is all the bad guys that have such an easy time getting that kind of firepower. You cannot lay out 1000 rounds per minute with your bolt action .06 or your 30 caliber M1. But they sure can with an AK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 05:52 PM Personally, I think people should be allowed to own any gun, of any type or caliber, they want to. I want to control all the ammunition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,Steve in Idaho Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM LOL - I did not mean to stir a hornet's nest up!! The other thread made mention of no ban coming due to more pressing constraints and I thought this was part of the new genre coming in! Thanks for that Kat, time line I mean, as I don't know what Pres Obama will do for certain. And I'll respond to what I believe to be infringements on my rights the same way I have with Pres Bush (he was no one's friend except his wallets and Cheneys). Letters, e-mails, and phone calls to my Senators and Representatives. I'm neither angry nor waving my guns around. But I believe I am firm in my convictions about what the founding father's meant about my ability to own firearms. Legal firearms. Mick - Assault weapon. A magazine fed, semi and full automatic, rifle capable of sustained fire when engaged with a lawfully defined enemy of the state in which one has taken on the responsibility of defending. Generally speaking, in an assault I want to gain superior firepower over my enemy to protect my life while endangering theirs. I own several firearms that fit the category outlined in this bill. And I have yet to be angry. I have never threatened anyone. I have never even pointed it at anyone. It's bad manners and the risks are enormous! But I enjoy going out to the desert and shooting them. They are fun guns! To me anyway. And as one who also works on firearms. No one is going to convert any weapon sold today in a few minutes to fully automatic. It takes longer than that to figure out how they even work! And without some fairly sophisticated tooling - well it takes work and those that do it are criminals. Just a thing folks - as a Christian I am not a doormat. I fully intend to defend my life and the lives of those I love in whatever manner I see fit. And I have received the obligatory training in how and when that is justifiable. I also struggle a bit with the "two guys did this or that" as that is a Red Herring. If that analogy was carried to its fullest we'd ban doctors and cars before we even thought about guns. :-) Lord Bless ya - Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:17 PM Big Mick said: "And we have a ton of laws on the books to control who owns full auto weapons." But we have no easy way of controlling who breaks those laws with, as noted, "an $8 manual and a trip to the hardware. As long as it is easy to end up with a fully automatic weapon, whether by theft, buying one illegally or conversion, there will be those who do so. Big Mick also said: "We should be enforcing those laws to the max." Of course we should. And I don't know any police/court system that would NOT prosecute known violations of those laws. Now if we could just get lawbreakers to register their intentions overtly, we might make some progress. Then he said: "We also have all the law we need to prosecute anyone who uses a weapon in the commission of a crime." Yes, we do.....which is of little comfort to victims of crimes whether or not we apprehend the criminals: and we do NOT get a lot of them. Many of those who WISH to engage in criminal use of weapons have learned ways to avoid capture & prosecution. Yes, I see the counter arguments to my points, Mick...we have gone over this before. The fact still remains: As long as certain types of weapons are easily available, whether legally or not, those weapons WILL be obtained & used by those who can't trusted! All the laws, good intentions, arguments about 'rights' and well-meaning minor adjustments to an already weak system will not keep more crimes from being committed and accidental deaths like the kid at the shooting range from happening. It is simple really....as long as we do not seriously restrict availability...of both certain types of weapons and ammunition... terrible headlines will continue to be common. When those headlines are reduced to one or two a YEAR, I may agree that we are getting somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:23 PM Mick, as to "what is an assault weapon", without getting into manufacturers and models, let's try a description of the functions that a firearm might have that would lead it being called "an assault weapon", which is a military concept. In a military assault, the attacker(s) typically want(s) to lay down LARGE numbers of rounds, the capacity for aimed fire being fairly irrelevant. Indeed, often particular attempt is made at aimed fire. The idea is to "cut 'em all down" or at least to force the defenders to keep their heads down so they can't fire back as the attackers move in. The idea is to send out a continuous stream of projectiles that can be sprayed over an area like a hose, very possibly while the attacking shooter(s) is/are moving (hopefully forward toward the defending enemy). Having a relatively large number of rounds available for continuous fire with a single continued squeeze of the trigger would be important in a military attack situation. The specification of a larger mass is to help the attacker stabilize the weapon from the repeated blows of multiple recoil. When the firearm is not being actively used, it is helpful that it may be folded to a smaller, more convenient size, for carrying, and in some cases for hiding (particularly in a criminal or terrorist use). A flash suppressor is desirable, so that the enemy is less likely to see the assaulting shooter(s). A forward handle is helpful in stabilizing the weapon for directing fire when the shooter is moving. The (at least potential) presence of a bayonet is desirable when the attackers (hopefully) overrun the defending position. Clearly the ability to fire grenades would be a military attack "plus" in an assault. The only one of the above functions or features that I would think helpful in civilian life (as for hunting) MIGHT be the folding stock, for weight reduction and convenience of carry. I don't see that any of the other functions would be helpful for any legal, utilitarian use, such as hunting. Congress has drawn the definition line at having AT LEAST two of the above characteristics. I personally wouldn't necessarily call a long gun with only a folding stock and a forward steadying handle a weapon peculiarly suited to an assault. Of course I'm not Congress. But I believe that a weapon with THREE OR MORE of those features is designed for anti-personnel use, and I applaud the attempt to suppress the sales AND THE POSSESSION of such weapons. They are not designed to have legal, useful functions in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and in the hands of violent criminals, terrorists, or the like (where they all too often can wind up) are too great a threat to civil society. I do not regard the "sporting" use of such a weapon to shoot up old cars, say, or merely tear up targets as a good which even remotely justifies the availability of such objects in non-military or non-police hands. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: artbrooks Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:24 PM I guess I'd have to come down on the side that says that a late 20th century military weapon - and I'm only referring to a long arm - has no legitimate, civilian, use. If you are a collector and want to own one, that's just fine with me - as long as it is appropriately licensed. I disagree that one can call an M-1903 Springfield, an M-1 Garand or an M-2 carbine an assault weapon and then say that, since these fit the "assault weapon definition" and can be used for a legitimate purpose, the definition and/or the proposed ban are therefor wrong. My opinion isn't necessarily universal, of course. What should be banned is any fully automatic weapon, and the existing prohibition should be fully enforced. What should be banned is any form of concealed carry - you want to carry your Colt hawgleg or .50 magnum Desert Eagle on your hip, go right ahead...after successfully completing a weapons safety and marksmanship course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:30 PM I left out the word "no". I said, "Indeed, often particular attempt is made at aimed fire." I meant the opposite: "Indeed, often NO, particular attempt is made at aimed fire." Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:32 PM Steve said: "I fully intend to defend my life and the lives of those I love...." And I see his point, also. There we have the quandry: We have weapons NOW in the hands of those who should not have them, and we have good people like Mick & Steve who intend to avoid being victims... and I sure do not blame them. Yet...*sigh*...those are the folks who are least likely to BE victims. Victims are often innocent bystanders in shooting, or students in a school, or clerks in a convenience store...etc. We cannot all go about armed - and if we DID, those who WANT to be criminals or 'settle arguments' would shoot first.....and we KNOW that many of our 'innocent' citizens are just not capable of handling either weapons OR situations where weapons might be useful. I have live in cities for most of my adult life, and I have NEVER been in a situation where I needed a gun....Someone 'might' knock on my door tomorrow and barge in with a gun, but the odds are against it. I take my chances, just as I take my chances when I drive on the freeway that some drunk won't run over me. Laws against drunk driving are on the books, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:36 PM (You note: I am NOT making detailed suggestions about easy solutions....I am not advocating anything like total bans...I am only pointing out what I consider to be relevant issues and flaws in the defense OF easy access to weapons) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Nov 08 - 06:55 PM ... 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.... Sorry my mind doesn't fit your agenda, Mick, but I do not have an aghenda of "removing weapons (without regard to what their legal use is) from the hands of responsible folks who own them." Since you asked, what I do not want people IN MY AREA (I know my area's culture you don't) to have easy access to is: A gun they can spray indiscriminately (with their brain turned off), across a crowded area full of people, as opposed to one they would have to purposely aim at an individual, taking enough care in the shot that time may well allow their thinking brain to modify their actions. Also, to me, the "Assault" in Assault Rifle means one designed for assaulting others-- to initiate a violent action against another. That's different from defending self, family, property, country. I recall all too well when such has occurred, and I know many good gun-owning people hereabouts who live alongside people training to do just that, BTW. And I know that they would agree with my post that an assault rifle is not necessary HERE in one's personal arsenal. I think you are on a bit of a hair-trigger of looking for a post that will fit YOUR agenda. In my experience, successfully prosecuting an agenda starts from positive values, actions, and communication. I do not have a sense of your positive values here-- if I did I would probably agree with them. There lie alliances. If you must first divide the pool of potential allies, how do you expect to have enough credibility or relationship to educate anyone in that pool? You assume a hidden agenda-- well, you don't know me well enough to read MY mind, I can tell you that. What-- fight first and THEN sort out who you knocked out that was actually on your side? Puzzled, ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: katlaughing Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:01 PM Well said, BillD. Thanks, bobad for looking and making note. Thanks heric, too, I would chose the same utopia. Thanks to Steve for coming back and explaining further. As Bill said, we've had several discussions about this before, most notably, imo, HERE which also has some links to other threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:21 PM Well I just put a call into a friend of mine, he is a life long NRA member and a master gun smith. I was telling him about our conversation. He also does not support any ban on any weapon and I respect and understand his opinion. However, discussing the AK-47, the reason that it is the perferred weapon of choice for many armies is the beauty and elegance of its simplistic design. He said with a quarter of the parts out or broken the weapon still functions. It was designed to be very simple yet very durable and powerful. When I asked him how hard it was to convert. His first words were illegal absolutely, but for a bad guy quite simple with some parts from any machine shop and on line instructions. Ok so it is easy to make fully auto .. that is my point with it and that is why I really don't care if they ban it or not. Even though I support the bill of rights. The problem is too many bad guys. well I made my point but I do very much respect other views without question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: kendall Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:24 PM My definition? any weapon that can be made full automatic and can hold more than 5 rounds. I don't really care what you call it. What is folk music. Another pointless argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:27 PM I do wonder about the wisdom of letting Republicans have weapons of mass destruction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM I make no secret of owning several firearms: rifles, pistols, revolvers, and shotguns. I make no secret of having a "concealed carry" permit, either. I do NOT carry concealed because I don't feel the need to carry a weapon concealed or otherwise. I was first trained in shooting over a half-century ago (yeah, I'm old, so what?). I was trained that if I have a firearm I am responsible for that firearm and all use made of it. This has carried over into my life outside of gun-toting: if I got a girl pregnant, I was responsible; if I drank and drove, I was responsible; if I...well, you get the idea. Sure could have had a lot more fun if there was more irresponsibility in my life.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:30 PM I have instructions at home on how to make my own Sten gun -- not that I'd want to use such a lousy piece of ordnance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: katlaughing Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:39 PM Forgot to say thanks, Rapaire, for clarifying the six-shooter thing, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM Harry Chapin - Sniper |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM posting a link to a comment of mine after the Virginia Tech shootings. It has some bearing on why I feel as I do. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=100831#2027953 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 19 Nov 08 - 08:24 PM Lizzie I miss him more than I can say thank you |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Nov 08 - 10:10 PM There was a guy on "Book TV" a few month back who wrote a book describing how the difference between the AK-47 and the M-16 was the reason the US lost the Vietnam war. That wouldn't be hard to do, though. The guy could just go through historical documents and pick out the ones that supported his proposition, and ignore the ones that did not. You could make a case for going to war in Iraq that very same way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,Steve in Idaho Date: 19 Nov 08 - 11:48 PM I don't think the weapons we used had much of anything to do with whether or not we "won" or "Lost" that particular war. I don't think there are too many winners in any armed conflict. Except the folks who profit from it. BillD - God Bless ya my friend. I can tell you that if I thought for even a fraction of a second that me giving up my legally owned weapons would prevent gun violence I'd give them up. But it won't. It's an admirable ideology but so impractical in today's society. And not the cause of the problems we need solved, like health care, healthy babies, hope where hopelessness causes many of the problems for our children, and any number of other things we NEED. One thing I would ask tho - of the millions of "assault type weapons" (note the type) out there, how many have been used in some sort of mass killing? A couple? And how many have died from just drunk drivers? During the Vietnam wasr we lost over 50,000 lives a year to drunk drivers here at home. About what we lost during the whole war to planned and rigorous gun violence. I think the key is to continue to talk about it. From Democracy comes both sides of the ailse. And in that ailse is the principle that will emerge. For me I'd a lot rather see all the energy against guns, which are not the problem, to misuse of alcohol and drugs in a vehicle by people, which are the problem in both scenarios, and have a much higher probability of making an impact. Yeah I have been gone for a bit. Still lurked occasionally. But I was glad to see the addition of seasoned moderators. Makes the place much more civil and enjoyable. Be well and God Bless ya Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 11:00 AM Susan said: That is because you haven't really read for comprehension what I am saying. And as to successfully prosecuting an agenda, I would tell you that I have made a career of it. If you would like me to teach a class for you sometime on the elements of successfully prosecuting an agenda, give me a call. My rates are reasonable. You ever heard of "on the square"? Your para reminded me of someone trying to say, "you are really screwed up, but I really like you, honest". Go back and read what I am saying. My point is that folks use this whole debate to avoid the real problem. They toss around terms like "assault weapon" without ever really giving any thought to what the term means. They hear about a campus shooting, or a drive by, and whip out phrases like "we need to ban assault weapons" or "we need to ban all handguns" as if that would stop a mentally ill kid, or a young person from very tough circumstances who gets caught up in gang activity. And the biggest phony predicate of all is the hope of my buddy Bill. That is the one that says if we passed a law banning weapons that the violent crime rate would go down. This in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of empiric evidence to support that thesis. The only way that could happen is if you could make weapons disappear from the face of the earth. In the abstract, you get folks like Steve here who seem to think that the whole of the experiment that is the society created as the United States of America revolves around the issue of whether the Second Amendment is still valid in the 21st century. They have voted for candidates based on this single issue (if this doesn't apply to you, Steve, I apologize, but you started the thread so you are the metaphor) even though to do so was to economic disadvantage, as they have discovered over the last month or so. But the real issue, before we all got sidetracked is whether there is a gun ban coming. I, for one, have read President Elect Obama's stance and don't find it troubling. I feel as though, either by intent or lack of knowledge, Steve's initial post was misleading. It seemed to imply, given the timing of it, that as a result of our choice on November 4 the slide towards a gun ban has begun. With all that is on his plate, and given his stance on the matter, my guess is you won't see anything significant coming anytime soon, if at all. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Nov 08 - 11:16 AM My point is that folks use this whole debate to avoid the real problem. And MY point is that you are blanketing good, thinking folks with your point-- sort of like a spraying AW? I do know what the term (AW) means and I shared just a tad on how it applies, here. You want to set national policy based on the notion that no one agrees with you, and insult people who might stand with you-- fine! :~) And no, I do not need your help on alliance building, as you know. Even with stroke-brain, I think I am comprehending your message quite clearly, but thank you very much for the insult, and best of luck with your marketing plan for Mudcat. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:25 PM Golly, Mick.....could you please show me where I said, or suggested, that I advocated or insinuated that we should "pass a law banning weapons" or that I claimed that would automatically reduce violent crime? When you ask folks to re-read YOUR posts, you should be sure you have accurately read and quoted those by others. I do believe, and am supported by many with a lot more data and experience than myself, that there IS a connection between violence and the easy availability of 'certain types' of weapons. I do NOT know exactly what to do about that situation, given the number of guns already out there. I suspect that those who wish NO change in gun laws would not be persuaded by any data. I repeat what I have said before: that IF only reasonable and careful people...like Steve & Mick are.... owned guns, we would reduce the number of tragedies tremendously. I am aware that violent people WILL still do anti-social things....but I would rather face a kid with a knife than one who can walk into a room and kill 12 people before they can get out the door. We are way too far down the path of widespread gun ownership to easily back out....but something MUST be done. I agree with "enforcement of the laws we already have".....but, Mick....YOU please tell me how to do that in a way that keeps guns out of the hands of idiots and angry teens! I don't see that it is being done right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:43 PM Bill, you are correct. You have stated your position many times. I am trying to steer this back to the intent of my posts, which is to say that there is nothing for gun owners to be immediately concerned about. We should, however, watch carefully for those that would use phony excuses, which would have no practical effect in solving the problems they seek to solve, to meet their real objectives. I wish that some, unlike you, would state their real objectives. They couch it in terms that are no more than code words. And all the while, they distract from the real issues and causes of the violence in our society. I haven't searched it out, but my guess is that there is probably a correlation between the widening gap between richest and poorest, and the increase in violent crime. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: pdq Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:43 PM "...A gun they can spray indiscriminately (with their brain turned off), across a crowded area full of people..." PLEASE stop describing a machine gun (automatic weapon) and calling it an assault weapon. A few thousand US citizens hold permits to own automatic weapons and most have connections to security work or law enforcement. There has been only one homocide by automatic weapon by someone who held a license from 1934-2008. He was a cop who found his wife cheating. He receive just punishment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,hg Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:45 PM I also think a bellicose, in your face, progun stance by a Mudcat hall monitor is also a HUGE mistake here on the forum. Now I'll take my insults as well. They're inevitable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: artbrooks Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:46 PM Mick, to me, saying that banning a certain class of weapon doesn't address the problem of individuals who use firearms to solve their problems is just about the same as saying that prohibiting open fires in wilderness areas doesn't solve the problem of people who light fires anyway or that having traffic laws doesn't stop people from driving dangerously. {I would rather ignore your rather condescending notion that people use the prospects of an assault weapon ban "to avoid the real problem". And believe me when I say that 22 years in the Army taught me exactly what the term "assault weapon" means.} We are a nation of laws, but just one law solves nothing. The fact is, unfortunate as it might be, often things don't happen in the absence of a legal requirement. If, in your opinion, the underlying issue is violent crime, than we need laws that require appropriate education (and don't ask what that might be, because I don't know), provide sanctions for criminal acts (and assure enforcement), and eliminate the tools that violent people use and that have no other real purpose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: katlaughing Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:52 PM Well said, Bill and Susan. Mick, I think you are generalising. Maybe you should check the shillelagh at the door.:-) No one in this thread has called for an outright ban. You won't win anyone over by being strident, authoritative, and/or condescending. We are, none of us, the "enemy" something President Obama is already demonstrating...in order for there to be a consensus and seeming fairness for all, we have to all learn to debate without the loud noise and generalisations we've all been guilty of in the past. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 01:04 PM hg, you seem to think that being a "Mudcat hall monitor" means I cannot have an opinion. Usually, with you, that means I have disagreed with you, which historically you can't handle. I would be happy to dig around for examples if you would like. And I NEVER let my personal likes/dislikes affect my duties. I would guess that in your profession, you probably should be able to say the same? So why don't you stick to arguing the points raised instead of this stuff. But that would be too much to ask, you haven't been able to do it yet. Not an insult, just an observation. I am well aware of your background, Art, and have great respect for it. And btw, in my opinion, an assault weapon would have a clip capacity over about 15 rounds and have a full auto option. A semi auto, without the full auto option, cannot be considered an assault weapon, again IMO. As to the ban on "assault weapons", it is useful to note that no one has commented on pdq's assertion. The only crimes committed with automatic weaponry in over 70 years has been with those obtained illegally. As to your comment: Let me assure you that it is neither condescending, nor without basis. It is based on watching the dumbing down of the political discourse in this country. Americans have sunk to the level of political discourse by cliche' that fits their own prejudices. I have seen it time and again. An example of that fits exactly with the opening post of this thread. The real reason for me bringing this up, originally in another thread, is to say that gun owners need not worry about an Obama administration. He has stated his position on the matter clearly. He believes the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for whatever legal purpose. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 01:12 PM kat, that is the second time you have used that shillelagh line. I am simply arguing my points, and I surely don't need chastisement from you. Simply argue your points. There is a difference between being authoritative and being opinionated. I am surely opinionated, as are you. I do not begrudge you, or any Mudcatter their opinions, nor do I consider those that respond passionately to be acting inappropriately. But I do consider those that seem to need to make patronizing, or matronizing, comments to be out of bounds. So answer the contentions, disagree, argue, make your points. But save the chastisement for others. I have a point of view, and I simply am stating it. If you don't like my style, I hope that all understand that there are those that don't like others styles as well. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:20 PM hg, "I also think a bellicose, in your face, progun stance by a Mudcat hall monitor is also a HUGE mistake here on the forum" Do you also think that a bellicose, in your face, anti-gun stance by a Mudcat hall monitor is also a HUGE mistake here on the forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:23 PM pdq said: PLEASE stop describing a machine gun (automatic weapon) and calling it an assault weapon. Well, pdq, would you please describe what difference you allege between a (fully) automatic weapon and an assault weapon? Perhaps such a description would make your arguments clearer. Or perhaps not. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:37 PM You know Dave, on reflection I think that maybe pdq makes a good point. All along I have been asking for the definition. But it seems to me that the very term "assault weapon" is one of those made up words we use when we really don't understand the difference. The fact that there are any number of definitions floating around this thread, some from knowledgeable folks and some from folks that don't know which end the round goes in, shows that folks are talking about generalities and appearances, when in fact they should be talking about capabilities. Weapons used in a military assault would have a full auto capability, as well as a semi auto capability. The point about defining them is to make folks use appropriate terms. A sporting version of the AK has the pistol grip stock, and is a semi automatic. The military version has the full auto option. Despite the contention that they can be converted in minutes, this simply is not the case. It takes a fair amount of knowledge. A person willing to do this is a lawbreaker to begin with. I think it is necessary to the discussion to know what folks are calling an "assault weapon". I suspect that they are referring to anything that has a military look to it. One more thing. How the hell does a bayonet lug make a weapon an assault weapon? And if it does, when is the last time you heard of a bayonet charge on the streets of the US? And once again, the gun ban is not starting "already". Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:46 PM Big Mick I hear what you are saying and respect it. Like I said I have conceal carry permits and a ton of firearms - grew up in a small PA town and still live in a small NY town. I do think it is much easier to convert an AK then people think, the AR would be harder but the AK, no I don't think so, maybe it is because I know firearms also but I do think it is fairly easy. However PDQ makes a good point. I just don't like the AK as I see no reason for it. That doesn't mean I support a ban, I just do care if it is banned for that reason |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: pdq Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:50 PM The term "assault weapon" is used to describe a gun with characteristics such as "threading intended to accept a silencer", "collapseable shoulder support", "attachments for mounting stand" and "pistol grip", etc. These have nothing to do with the number of rounds the gun can fire or how fast it can fire them. It also has nothing to do with the buyer or what he intends to do with it when he gets home. Repeat until it set in: automatic weapons were made illegal in 1934 at the request of J. Edgar Hoover because of the proliferation of the Thompson sub-machine giun. Only a few thousand people in the US hold a permit to own and operate an automatic weapon (machine gun) and extensive training is needed. Also a reason for owning it, which is usually work as a professional security person or cop. An AK-47 or M-16 with automatic capability is not sold legally and conversion parts are just as illegal as the weapon itself. The term "assault weapon" is used to scare people. What is being banned will fire one shot each time you pull the trigger. As Rapaire said, about the same as a "double action" 6-shooter from the Wild West days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: olddude Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:21 PM Well PDQ, no matter what happens with firearm laws, the only ones it ever affects is those who don't break the law. The criminals don't care. It is pretty evident looking at the street gangs all carrying without a permit. For those of us who went through the incredible complex process of getting a carry permit in NY, the criminals didn't need to do that. By the way, to even own a handgun in NY, you would not believe the process. I am one of the very few that actually got a conceal carry permit that I know. my only concern with the AK is that shootout in California a few years back, those two guys converted them to fully auto with armour piercing round and rained havoc on the police. To me can't see why we need them for hunting or otherwise since you can go get 100 round drum clips and lay seige to someone or someplace like what happened. But I guess the bad guys will always get them and the good guys will obey the ban if it comes to that so nothing really changes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Wesley S Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:22 PM " What is being banned will fire one shot each time you pull the trigger. As Rapaire said, about the same as a "double action" 6-shooter from the Wild West days." If you really believe that then we need to meet at a rifle range someday so you can show me how well you can shoot a "6-shooter from the Wild West days." Apples and oranges. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:31 PM "What is being banned will fire one shot each time you pull the trigger." Nothing **IS** being banned.... someone is just talking about the idea. but.... blam,blam,blam,blam,blam,blam,blam,blam...etc. Since you can "pull the trigger" on most of those weapons just as fast as you can read the line above aloud, it is still a pretty effective weapon. I fail to see why anyone outside the police force or military needs one. Deer don't usually wait for shots 2-7. *IF*, as Steve suggests, it is just 'fun' to go out in the desert and blast some innocent cactus, I still don't see why anyone needs one. The answer, obviously, is not 'need', but wishing to have them and wishing to interpret current law to allow them to have such weapons. The world is full of folks who want definitions to be interpreted to fit their own desires and interests....that's why lawyers make a lot of money arguing the details. As Mick says, I don't really expect much to change in those laws very soon........but neither do expect a big decline in sad headlines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:33 PM Fair enough, Wes. But Rap is talking about the rate of fire. How about my 7mm magnum. It fires one round each time you pull the trigger. It is a pure sporting arm, used for long range deer hunting ...... unless I were to use it as a sniper rifle, in which case it's ballistics make it one helluva long range weapon. I am a law abiding citizen, so that is not what I use it for. Is it an "assault rifle"? Nope. Could it be used for devastating effect? Yep. Would I rather have a shotgun at close range? Yep. Is it an assault weapon? Nope, it's for hunting. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:40 PM But see, Bill, there you go again with the need piece. Whether or not you think I need a weapon, or whether you agree with why I need a weapon, is no more germane than if I told you that there is no need for you to drive a car. I already have the right to own weapons, and to do so without defining why I have them. In order for folks to say I don't need them, and make me give up my CONSTITUTIONAL right to own them, there has to be a compelling NEED on behalf of society. No one has demonstrated yet how the act of taking the right to own weapons from law abiding, responsible gun owners will affect in a positive way the issues that are spawning the debate. The burden isn't on us. It is on those that want to limit my access to a right I already have. And it goes on and on. Anyone want to talk about what makes music folk music for awhile? Mick over and out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Wesley S Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:41 PM Believe me Mick - I'm not suggesting that anything be banned. It's just that PDQ made an unreasonable comparision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: artbrooks Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:47 PM FYI Any weapon capable of continuous fire, with or without a single-shot option, is an automatic weapon. A machine gun is an automatic weapon, but not all automatic weapons are machine guns. A machine gun, as the term is used in and by the military, and an assault rifle (the military really doesn't use either this term or "assault weapon") are two very different things. A machine gun is a weapon that is capable of very high rates of fire due to the fact that it is fed by belted ammunition. It may be capable of firing in a single-shot mode, but continuous fire (practically speaking, repeated 4-6 round bursts) is the default. An assault rifle's default mode is single-shot, aimed fire. Neither the current version of the M-16 rifle (the M-16A2) nor the more recent M-4 carbine has an automatic fire mode, although they do have a 3-shot alternative to the single-shot. The M-4A1 can fire automatically. Although their cyclic rate of fire is close to that of a machine gun (and greater than that of the venerable M-2 .50 cal machine gun), the actual, sustained, rate is much lower because of the need to replace the magazine every 30 shots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:57 PM *grin*...Mick...you just proved my point. You are pointing out that you WANT them, and like laws to be read to give you that access. Folks DO still argue about that "Constitutional" right, and how it was meant. (I can't 'prove' how the framers would write it today, but I very much doubt they'd have left it that vague if they'd seen an AK-47!) I can demonstrate irrefutably that, if all guns were taken away from private citizens, there WOULD be a really, really major decline in deaths from gunshots, and I'd bet you'd admit there would be an overall decline in violent deaths generally. All we are debating is whether it would be worth it. It is not something anyone CAN demonstrate without actually doing the test. (and the car metaphor don't cut it.... in this society there is MUCH more obviously a 'need' for cars than guns. I can't easily get to the Getaway unless the are cars available, but I can get food and, because I HAVE a car, I don't need to be in many situations where I'd need a gun!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 20 Nov 08 - 05:14 PM But Mick (and you, and I) also have the right to petition the government for redress, to peacefully assemble, to be secure in our homes, to enjoy habeas corpus, and so forth. You may not need the right to a speedy trial now or ever, but do you want to give it up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:03 PM I'm with Bill. Almost word for word. (hey Bill) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: GUEST,Steve in Idaho Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:21 PM I just love this space! LOL - It's Assault TYPE weapons that is the subject of this thread! You know - the only thing I have NEEDED is the love of Jesus Christ. And He has been able to give me hope. The rest, other than love, food and water, clothing, and shelter, are all wants. :-) At one time I needed Ferrara's guitar, and she allowed me to borrow it, and other than that I'm good to go. BillD - there are millions of responsible gun owners out there. And it is a sad fact that a couple will abuse it and make life miserable for the rest of us. Nature of the beast I'm thinking. I know you have lived in the city and never had need of a weapon. Good on you Brother. Where I live, due to high unemployment, a large influx of folks from other spaces, and the rate of crime has shot up dramatically. We experience either a drive by shooting, a home invasion robbery, a bank robbery, or other related crimes on a nearly daily basis here. It is only responsible to be armed. I would never use any of my assault TYPE weapons to stop someone invading my home with harm on their mind. I've a nice little 12 gauge pump shotgun for that. The other rifles would shoot clear through the home and endanger my neighbors. The shotgun is loaded with what will only pass through the walls and stop in the brick siding. I certainly understand the emotions attached to this - but it's my opinion that no matter what our President elect does - he is going to finaly get us out of Iraq. And I praise Jesus for getting him elected to do that. Lord bless ya Steve |
