 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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:21 PM Maybe I didn't make it clear, Bill. The fact that I want the laws, is not the germane point. The fact that I already have the Constitutional Right, is the germane point. When you speculate on what the Founders would do, all you have to do is to look at how hard it is to change a Constitutionally granted right. I have the right to keep and bear arms. For anyone to take that right, the burden of proof as to the reason is on them. And no one yet has demonstrated how taking away the right of lawful, responsible, gun owners to their weapons would affect in a positive way the problems they seek to solve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:22 PM Rap...those are not the same category of 'rights'. You can't defend guns simply as one item in a non-negotiable list. Each would have to be debated on it's own merits. Some things often wanted as 'rights' are merely 'privileges'. There are perfectly good reasons for some folks to have some guns... I assert that there SHOULD be no blanket 'right' for almost anyone to have almost ANY gun. I also believe that Habeas corpus is a bit more important. (Why, thank you, Susan...hi there!) as we can see, there are folks on both sides of the debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:38 PM Bill D said: Right. And that means that you would have to justify the taking away of a right granted in the Bill of Rights. I would argue that those are, in fact, the cornerstones of the whole process. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:43 PM Cross posting sure gets awkward.. Mick... your right to "keep & bear" is currently in place simply because opponents have not found quite enough support to challenge it and clarify that amendment. The amendment, as stated, is quite ambiguous. The pairing of the necessity of an organized militia with making 'arms' available to them just does not address the situation we face today. In the 1780s & 90s, a 'militia' was often assembled by just putting out a call for locals to bring their muskets and come help. In those cases, it was obvious that owning a weapon or two made sense. Now, we have a 'militia' of organized form, with weapons (mostly standardized) issued BY the government, to avoid chaos. It makes no sense to tell me not to 'speculate' about what the Founders would do in today's world! I can't imagine that they would want 200 million folks toting various weapons, ready to repel ..... something. But....250+ years of folks getting used to guns, some for quite valid reasons, even as the types and power of weapons has changed radically and even after society has also changed radically, ... has led to the IDEA that they should continue 'keeping' them, with few limitations. You can argue your opinion, but you can't just DEFINE away the opinions of all those who see MY point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM Steve... I do know 'there are millions of responsible gun owners out there'. I also know that under certain circumstances, it can be reasonable for some of the 'responsible' ones to own 'some' types of weapons. But even you no doubt realize that everyone in YOUR area is either NOT responsible, or, if they ARE honest, law-abiding folks, are not all competent to own and use firearms. Even *I*, living where I do, know that there are dangerous people in my neighborhood....but I can't see how my having a gun or two would make me safer. We need ways to sort out this situation. YOU can't go riding about, protecting all those who can't be trusted with a gun..... how do we solve this? It's not just philosophical question...it needs a practical solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:54 PM Well, I find that those who wrote the US Constitution seem to have envisioned a military establishment more like Switzerland's than what we have: * "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 * "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution * "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 * If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 * "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850) * "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46 * "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." --John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788) * "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." --Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). * "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. * "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." --Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. * "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356 * "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] * "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..." -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 * "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789 * " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380 * " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..." -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29 * "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 * "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386 * "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..." -- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms * "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6 * "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959 * "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833 * " ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved." -- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604 * "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order." -- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898] * "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... " --Samuel Adams |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Big Mick Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM I am not trying to define away opinions. I am making the point, and you evade it at every opportunity, that no matter how many "feelings" you have, and no matter how logical you think your arguments sound, the fact is that the Constitution grants me a right, a right that has been responsibly exercised by the overwhelming majority of gun owners for the history of this country, and in order for you to change that right you have two options. One is to litigate on the meaning. That was tried and it was found that the right to keep and bear arms refers to a private right. The second option is to overturn the amendment using the process. That has been tried and failed miserably. It will continue to fail. One of the reasons I am so strident on this issue is that I tire of seeing our party, and the middle class, suffering as a result of the Roves, Bushs, and their ilk using this as a wedge. We act as though private gun ownership is at the root of inner city and rural poverty, crime, ciolence and a poor education system. The facts are that spending so much time on an issue that, if you were successful, wouldn't affect those things in a positive way. In fact there is some pretty good evidence that it would have the opposite effect. Got to go to practice, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM Mick...I don't see anyone advocating deleting any of the Bill of Rights except gun ownership by the masses. What I do see is many not even wanting to see that one discussed or debated 'on its own merits'. They don't wish the question to be raised. I do see why. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:00 PM wow...now Rapaire has given me many an item to read and mull over...I guess I'd better do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: pdq Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:11 PM "I don't see anyone advocating deleting any of the Bill of Righs except gun ownership by the masses." Fine. Get your state's House and Senate to write and approve an amendment to the US Constitution. Then get the required majority of states to join you. Then have it rattified. Takes time? It is supposed to. Besides, you will find only about 20% of the population is on your side. Too bad. Best put that effort into anti-gang units and other types of law enforcement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: kendall Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:22 PM The constitution of Maine says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be questioned." That may look radical until you consider that Maine is one of the safest states in the union. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: artbrooks Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:37 PM Mick, as a student of history, this statement has me a bit confused: "The second option is to overturn the amendment using the process. That has been tried and failed miserably. It will continue to fail." When, exactly, was there an organized effort, which is to say when was a bill submitted in Congress to amend the Constitution to change or eliminate the 2nd Amendment that got past the appropriate committee and subjected to debate on the Floor? Please understand, I have no interest in eliminating this right, but I think it still needs a great deal of clarification. US vs Miller (1939) and Parker vs DC (2008) are contradictory in many ways, and Parker did not overturn Miller. Both decisions are very narrow interpretations of specific statutes. By not stating that the Militia Clause is no longer valid, and that the rest of the Amendment stands on its own, the Supreme just left the door open for continued (and continuous) litigation. For example, it is quite easy to make an argument that the legal ban of ownership of automatic weapons is unconstitutional, since they certainly are much closer to meeting the description of having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"(Miller) than the sawed-off shotgun at issue in 1939. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:44 PM What I find really disturbing is the continuing ban on privately-owned tactical nukes. You know, the hand-held variety? I really cannot see why the general public cannot be trusted to handle things like that responsibly, specially those living in gated communities who, after all, need protection from poor people and illegal immigrants and other such undesirables. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:57 PM Gee LH...that is sure helpful. PDQ...I am well aware that it would be difficult to change anything. The NRA would spend millions and say anything to keep things as they are. Of course we need to put money into anti-gang stuff and better law enforcement....but does that mean nothing else shoud be discussed? Kendall...Maine is hardly a standard case for evaluating the situation. And, the Maine constitution is 'almost' as ambiguous as the US one. Which leads to the question of whether individual states 'should' have the right to different regulations....like the DC one which was struck down |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 07:58 PM (still reading and mulling the quotes Rap posted) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: pdq Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:02 PM The Amendment Process"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used. The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd). The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority. The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment: * Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used) * Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used) * Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once) * Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:42 PM yes...we know how it works...we are wondering whether any of those are worth bothering with. I see that many of the 'voices' quoted by Rap in the early days were still very much concerned with the possibility of needing to protect the citizens FROM their own government. In those days, that was a natural worry....after all, they had just finished rebelling against an unjust rule. As we come down to some later opinions, the tone changes a little. I don't see the argument offered much these days that we, the people need the option of resisting our elected govt. by force of arms.....except by self-proclaimed right-wing 'militias' who reject almost any control from above. Mostly, I see claims of 'self defense' and security in the home to be the major 'reasons', with the 2nd amendment used as an absolute guarantee, no matter what objections are raised. What we have seen in the last 30-40 years is a different class of lawbreaker getting access to a different class of weapon. Urban gangs used to just fight...or maybe use knives. Now, in some places,14 year old kids are expected to acquire and use guns, and simple arguements are settled with drive-bys. I do see why many folks would at least THINK of protecting themselves with arms equal to those carried by criminals....I just don't see many instances of that working out. For every news story of "73 year old liquor store clerk chases out robber with a 38", there are 10 stories of clerks being shot BY robbers for attempting to reach beneath the counter. I hate to just sound like I am trying to **ban guns**....what I want is real, detailed proposals by those who DO understand firearms about how to keep the benefits and avoid most of the dangers. ....and I do NOT mean just repeating the mantra of "enforce the laws we have". Ask ANY police dept. how easy that is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: pdq Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:52 PM Since the US Constitution was signed, guns have gotten much better. People have gotten much worse. That is the problem behind the problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: katlaughing Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:15 PM For every news story of "73 year old liquor store clerk chases out robber with a 38", there are 10 stories of clerks being shot BY robbers for attempting to reach beneath the counter. I hate to just sound like I am trying to **ban guns**....what I want is real, detailed proposals by those who DO understand firearms about how to keep the benefits and avoid most of the dangers. ....and I do NOT mean just repeating the mantra of "enforce the laws we have". Ask ANY police dept. how easy that is. Exactly. IF you don't want guns banned, and that would admittedly be near to impossible, what solutions do you offer, any of you, to combat the misuse of firearms? Legally owning a gun doesn't stop accidents of kids killing kids playing with said guns or a kid coming home and using his dad's hunting rifle to commit suicide. HOW do we stop those kinds of things from happening and the things Bill noted above? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:39 PM Oh, I don't think people have gotten much worse. There's just more of them. Bill, this is a very complex issue. It includes the difference between urban (e.g., LA, DC) and rural (e.g., Pocatello, ID; Quincy, IN; Luray, VA; Belle Fouche, SD, even Grand Rapids, MI) culture. The media also have a not-inconsequential part to play from the time of "The Great Train Robbery" to the present in the glorification of violence and weapons as ends in themselves. So does the dime novels of the 19th Century. The last time someone pulled a gun on the police (or anyone else) here the cop Tasered him (the gun turned out to be a toy from which the orange "tip" had been removed). That was two weeks ago. The last time the police shot and killed someone was about two years ago: police and a probation officer went to check on a guy who had missed his probation appointment and he came out of a room shooting (everyone involved immediately went on "administrative leave" and psychological counseling until the investigation was complete). When was the last time someone shot at someone else in DC? In South Central? Where I grew up "a gun behind the door meant meat on the table" and still does. It does out here, too -- there are about 60,000 people in this immediate area, working out to about 12,000 households and it's estimated that there is an average of four (4) firearms per household. No one is afraid of their neighbor, and while there are places I would really rather not go they are apartment buildings and bars instead of entire neighborhoods. I really think that one of the first things that MUST be done is break up the idea that violence and weapons are a solution and not simply a tool. When a country feels threatened and so says it has the "right" to attack another country that sends the message that violence is okay -- and it contravenes the court case in Indiana (among other places) in which a man who had his car break down in a "bad" neighborhood in Indianapolis shot and killed a man more than fifty feet away because "he felt threatened." When is it correct for a country to do what you as an individual are prohibited from doing? (The Hoosier Supreme Court quite rightly upheld the murder conviction of the shooter.) As for fearing my government, well, you bet I do! If the USA Patriot Act, the warrantless surveillance and wiretaps, and the other "security" laws don't demonstrate that the government will ride roughshod over the Bill of Rights if it can (and remember, even Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus) you have more faith in the lawmakers than I do. I most certainly think that it is possible to work the problems out in a rational way which is satisfactory to all but the most fanatical on both sides of the issue. But it won't be done by screaming at each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:54 PM How can we prevent suicides? Well, to start with we could pay closer attention to each other and learn to recognize the symptoms that can lead to suicide, such as these: Warning Signs of Suicide * Ideation (thinking, talking or wishing about suicide) * Substance use or abuse (increased use or change in substance) * Puposelessness (no sense of purpose or belonging) * Anger * Trapped (feeling like there is no way out) * Hopelessness (there is nothing to live for, no hope or optimism) * Withdrawal (from family, friends, work, school, activities, hobbies) * Anxiety (restlessness, irritability, agitation) * Recklessness (high risk-taking behavior) * Mood disturbance (dramatic changes in mood) * Talking about suicide. * Looking for ways to die (internet searches for how to commit suicide, looking for guns, pills, etc.) * Statements about hopelessness, helplessness, or worthlessness. * Preoccupation with death. * Suddenly happier, calmer. * Loss of interest in things one cares about. * Visiting or calling people one cares about. * Making arrangements; setting one's affairs in order. * Giving things away, such as prized possessions. And we could learn to care about each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 20 Nov 08 - 09:59 PM There are currently laws on the books in some states, such as California, which prohibit the storage of weapons in a way that they are accessible to children. No, this does not need to prevent them from being quickly available to stop a home invasion or other case of legitimate self-defense. It DOES require forethought, however. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 20 Nov 08 - 10:06 PM I'm not trying to dominate this discussion, but I'm simply putting thoughts down as they come to me. The single most important thing we could do is to change our ways of thinking about weapons and violence. I leave you to search and consider the case of Switzerland and the Swiss armed forces. I do know something about weapons and I've been a shooter, as I said before, for better than fifty years. My mother insisted that my two brothers, my sister, and I all take shooting instruction at the local rifle range so that we would know about firearms ("There are too damned many of them out there and I want you kids to know enough to be safe around them.") As a result we have never had an "accident" with a weapon and we don't look upon them as some sort of holy grail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: katlaughing Date: 20 Nov 08 - 10:54 PM Rapaire, good information. Some suicides come from other factors like parents' pressure such as a news item I posted about years ago involving a 14 year old in WY who was afraid to tell his parents he'd made less than "A"s on his report card, locked himself in the bathroom and blew his brains out as he did with his dad's hunting rifle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 20 Nov 08 - 11:08 PM I know of a teen in Ohio who was NOT pressured by his parents to match his brother or anything like that, but to succeed in his own way. The family was close, and one day after school the teen went into the garage with a muzzle loading shotgun he'd made (from a kit) with his dad and...well, no one could figure out why and even today no one knows why. He did mention to his friends, "I won't be at school tomorrow" but that was all the indication they had and they thought that the family was taking a day trip or something. Some things aren't meant to be known, I guess. The family moved out of town within a year and I've lost track of them. A tragedy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: kendall Date: 21 Nov 08 - 08:33 AM Bill, I'm glad you picked up on what I said about Maine's constitution. I have a couple of friends who are "gun nuts", and I have tried to point out to them that conditions in North Jockstrap Maine are quite different from those in Harlem, and that means there must be different laws. It always falls on deaf ears because they just don't care what happens in Harlem.If people want to kill themselves or another resident of Harlem, tough. Just don't try to take my gun. They choose to live there don't they? (They are both republicans) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 21 Nov 08 - 09:26 AM State Constitutional provisions regarding arms: Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. California: No provision. Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959). Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Iowa: No provision. Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Maryland: No provision. Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Minnesota: No provision. Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. New Jersey: No provision. New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. New York: No provision. North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: goatfell Date: 21 Nov 08 - 09:46 AM and then you wonder why the rest of the world well some of them are frightened of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Rapparee Date: 21 Nov 08 - 11:15 AM When you see the French and German police carrying submachine guns (machine pistols) on a regular basis; when you see gun shops in France with FALN "assault rifles" on display in their front windows; when you ask for gun flints (for a flintlock) at a gun store in France and owner doesn't even know what you're talking about; when a 1998 Oxfam reports shows that between 1995 and 1997 the UK sold small arms to over 100 countries; when Viet Nam has reportedly transferred weapons to Myanmar; when Lebanon, Liberia, Burkina Faso, and Niger have transferred weapons to Sierra Leone; when Namibia has transferred them to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Angola; Burkina Faso to Benin...and 88% of the world trade in military small arms comes from the five permanent members of the US Security Council.... No, I don't worry about why other countries are "frightened" of the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: Bill D Date: 21 Nov 08 - 11:38 AM *waking up with lots to read* Thanks, Rapaire...those are the kind of thoughts & information I (we) need to keep thinking about the problem. There is obviously no simplistic solution, but there are intermediate ways, not fully utilized yet, to steer us toward saner controls. I am not convinced that we can get to a 'comfortable' situation without a few more bans/controls/regulations....but I know that we'd better try. And yeah... I KNOW that the situation in Pocatello, Idaho is quite different from DC or LA or Detroit. I also know that many of the illegal guns in MY area are purchased 'legally' in states to the south of us and sort of 'find their way' into the wrong hands. The situation is very much like drugs....as long as there is a demand, someone will try to provide a supply. Once they reach their destination, they WILL be used......which is why many, including myself, would like to see the supply controlled better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Gun ban - yep already From: kendall Date: 21 Nov 08 - 01:25 PM Let's simplify this problem. On the one hand, we have Mr. Law abiding American. On the other, a dirtbag who steals, and or kills to feed a drug habit. Mr. Law abiding man will not own a gun because it is against a local ordinance. Mr. Dirtbag couldn't care less about local laws, and will own a gun to give him an edge. Does that make sense? All it does is make Mr. Law abiding American vulnerable because the dirtbag knows most people are not armed. When Florida passed its right to carry law, the crime rate nosedived.What does that tell you? |
