Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Gun ban - yep already

artbrooks 20 Nov 08 - 12:46 PM
GUEST,hg 20 Nov 08 - 12:45 PM
pdq 20 Nov 08 - 12:43 PM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 12:43 PM
Bill D 20 Nov 08 - 12:25 PM
wysiwyg 20 Nov 08 - 11:16 AM
Big Mick 20 Nov 08 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Steve in Idaho 19 Nov 08 - 11:48 PM
Riginslinger 19 Nov 08 - 10:10 PM
olddude 19 Nov 08 - 08:24 PM
Bill D 19 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 19 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM
katlaughing 19 Nov 08 - 07:39 PM
Rapparee 19 Nov 08 - 07:30 PM
Rapparee 19 Nov 08 - 07:28 PM
Richard Bridge 19 Nov 08 - 07:27 PM
kendall 19 Nov 08 - 07:24 PM
olddude 19 Nov 08 - 07:21 PM
katlaughing 19 Nov 08 - 07:01 PM
wysiwyg 19 Nov 08 - 06:55 PM
Bill D 19 Nov 08 - 06:36 PM
Bill D 19 Nov 08 - 06:32 PM
Uncle_DaveO 19 Nov 08 - 06:30 PM
artbrooks 19 Nov 08 - 06:24 PM
Uncle_DaveO 19 Nov 08 - 06:23 PM
Bill D 19 Nov 08 - 06:17 PM
GUEST,Steve in Idaho 19 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM
Rapparee 19 Nov 08 - 05:52 PM
olddude 19 Nov 08 - 05:39 PM
heric 19 Nov 08 - 05:38 PM
Rapparee 19 Nov 08 - 05:37 PM
Big Mick 19 Nov 08 - 05:30 PM
olddude 19 Nov 08 - 05:29 PM
heric 19 Nov 08 - 05:23 PM
artbrooks 19 Nov 08 - 05:19 PM
bobad 19 Nov 08 - 05:06 PM
Big Mick 19 Nov 08 - 05:03 PM
artbrooks 19 Nov 08 - 04:51 PM
Big Mick 19 Nov 08 - 04:48 PM
bobad 19 Nov 08 - 04:46 PM
Big Mick 19 Nov 08 - 04:40 PM
heric 19 Nov 08 - 04:38 PM
wysiwyg 19 Nov 08 - 04:29 PM
Big Mick 19 Nov 08 - 04:28 PM
bobad 19 Nov 08 - 04:15 PM
Big Mick 19 Nov 08 - 04:13 PM
Big Mick 19 Nov 08 - 04:04 PM
Rapparee 19 Nov 08 - 04:03 PM
olddude 19 Nov 08 - 04:01 PM
kendall 19 Nov 08 - 03:52 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 11:00 AM

Susan said:

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?


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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM

Harry Chapin - Sniper


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

      ï¿½(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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Nov 08 - 04:29 PM

Yeah, doze dere.

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.�.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 24 October 5:55 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.