| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2004 04:11:29 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***Well, not all, but a few. Militia groups like those associated with Timothy McVeigh could attack the government and try to take matters in their own hands by using these weapons against the military and law enforcement. |
Laws preventing gun ownership won't prevent this sort of activity. |
Woudn't laws making ownership of these types of weapons make it harder to get and so less likely that these types of groups could make for this type of activity?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What has this society come to? Paranoid, fearful people that would rather confront others with force than try to promote peaceful solutions to today's ills. I don't think these weapons are defensive in nature at all. |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
This doesn't make sense, "What has this society come to?" This implies there was a more peaceful time prior. It isn't true. So by you stating guns aren't defensive in nature at all are you saying they are purely aggressive? Could there not be a third category? I own many firearms and non-firearms. I use them for neither defense nor aggression. Some are more decoration than anything else and the rest for recreational target shooting. |
I'm not talking about the kinds of guns used for defense in ones home, but rather the assault rifles and automatics that can fire off many rounds in a matter of seconds. Are these not offensive weapons?
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 16:12:34. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 04:13:17 PM · #52 |
| Even the UN agrees that robberies and sexual assaults go UP where guns are taken away. This includes your lovely England! |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 04:13:47 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
However, as we've seen throughout history, laws do not stop crime, they only create criminals and punish. |
/boggle. So you're basically saying that laws have no deterrent effect, and that we have just as many rapes, murders etc as we would have in an anarchy, the only difference is that the people who commit these acts are punished?? |
Partially, I'm saying laws do not stop crime. If they did there would be no criminals, I'm sure you'll agree. Your argument was that there only need be a few people to go on a murderous rampage for there to be more than enough dead people. I am saying that the deterrent effect is negligible at best so there would still be people killing each other and in such a situation guns should be allowed be it for personal defense, recreation, or collection. Also, anarchy doesn't imply that people turn into animals but that is another tangent not related to the subject at hand.
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Nor does the US. It is interesting to note that there is quite a bit of gun crime in the UK even with significantly more restrictive gun laws. |
I raised that because someone has already trotted out the "well we need them for defence, look at when gun law X was repealed personal crime fell X percent" nonsense.
There are only two arguments that make sense for gun ownership. Personal protection - and you've just argued that this isn't the case - or hunting, for which semi-automatic weapons seem a little... well... excessive and unsporting. Hell *I* could probably kill a deer with a semi-automatic. Where's the sport in that?
Unless you choose to bring up the tired "it's my divine constitutional RIGHT to own them", in which case there really is no hope! :-) |
I didn't argue that personal protection is not a reason to own a gun. I said it wasn't my reason for owning guns. Hunting I don't have a problem with people hunting with semi-automatic weapons. It doesn't seem unsporting to me to have the gun reload itself. On the other hand the first shot should be a kill shot rather than a wounding shot. We will have to simply disagree that there are only two reasons for gun ownership. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 04:17:26 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Woudn't laws making ownership of these types of weapons make it harder to get and so less likely that these types of groups could make for this type of activity? |
No
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm not talking about the kinds of guns used for defense in ones home, but rather the assault rifles and automatics that can fire off many rounds in a matter of seconds. Are these not offensive weapons? |
Not necessarily. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 04:45:40 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I didn't argue that personal protection is not a reason to own a gun. I said it wasn't my reason for owning guns. Hunting I don't have a problem with people hunting with semi-automatic weapons. It doesn't seem unsporting to me to have the gun reload itself. On the other hand the first shot should be a kill shot rather than a wounding shot. We will have to simply disagree that there are only two reasons for gun ownership. |
Ok, so you've ruled out protection and hunting. What other reasons are there to own deadly weapons in an enlightened and civilised democracy? |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 04:59:10 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by ganders:
enlightened and civilised democracy? |
Where is this place? Can I move there... I was pretty sure this place didn't exist. Please don't tell me it's England, I'v lived there...
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 16:59:43. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:15:09 PM · #57 |
BIG PROBLEM: The body armor used by law enforcement are not strong enough to stop a high velocity round that comes from the now un-banned weapons. Legalizing a larger clip is bad because it puts them back into production, so there will be more of them. The larger clip allows for more efective auto-mods and naturally less requirement of criminals to reload. I understand the use of firearms for personal defense, but who needs an assault weapon to defend themselves (unless they are in the middle east)
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:28:30 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Quickshutter:
BIG PROBLEM: The body armor used by law enforcement are not strong enough to stop a high velocity round that comes from the now un-banned weapons. Legalizing a larger clip is bad because it puts them back into production, so there will be more of them. The larger clip allows for more efective auto-mods and naturally less requirement of criminals to reload. I understand the use of firearms for personal defense, but who needs an assault weapon to defend themselves (unless they are in the middle east) |
The rounds fired from the now-unbanned weapons are no different, and travel no faster than those that can be used in previously un-banned weapons. The ONLY differences in the weapons are COSMETIC. The only difference in capacity is the now legal manufacture and sale of larger magazines. You can STILL only fire one round per trigger pull. If armour worked before, it still does. If it doesn't now, it never did. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 05:43:27 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Quickshutter:
BIG PROBLEM: The body armor used by law enforcement are not strong enough to stop a high velocity round that comes from the now un-banned weapons. Legalizing a larger clip is bad because it puts them back into production, so there will be more of them. The larger clip allows for more efective auto-mods and naturally less requirement of criminals to reload. I understand the use of firearms for personal defense, but who needs an assault weapon to defend themselves (unless they are in the middle east) |
The rounds fired from the now-unbanned weapons are no different, and travel no faster than those that can be used in previously un-banned weapons. The ONLY differences in the weapons are COSMETIC. The only difference in capacity is the now legal manufacture and sale of larger magazines. You can STILL only fire one round per trigger pull. If armour worked before, it still does. If it doesn't now, it never did. |
Not true. The changes are not only cosmetic. There are charicteristics of an assault weapon that increase their offencive killing power. telescoping or folding stocks allow for better concealment, bayonet mounts, flash supressors, grenade launchers, a barrel capable of attatching of an extender, scilencer, or forward handgrip, a heat shroud arround the barrel, having these things were previously banned, (2 or more from a longer list) and are now legal, allowing fore more deadly use.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 07:20:59 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Where is this place? Can I move there... I was pretty sure this place didn't exist. Please don't tell me it's England, I'v lived there... |
I was actually referring to the self-styled "leader of the free world"; namely, you lot over there. Were you taking issue with the US being enlightened, civilised or democratic? ;-)
The point would be meaningless if I were referring to England because we're not allowed guns and very few people are arguing for their general legalisation.
Although that said, it's enlightened and civilised enough that I don't feel a burning urge to own semi-automatics. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:43:14 PM · #61 |
Men with little penises rejoice!
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:10:28 PM · #62 |
A lot of people really need to go read WHAT the ban was about and covered and what will now be "un-banned".
Alost every person seems to forget that there are more powerfull and harmfull guns that can be bought at any sporting goods store in the USA. They may not be fully automatic or look "assulty" but they can do some serious damage.
Banning or stopping the LEGAL sale of guns does NOT stop or prevent ANY crimes. Most people who would use a so called "assult weapon" for ill purposes probablly could not clear the back ground check you must go through to purchase weapons legally in the USA, so they have to buy them off the street from a guy named Vinnie out of the trunk of his 73 caddy. Banning them does NOTHING
I am NOT a gun rights activist. and I really dont care for guns, but I do own 1 gun. It is locked away and has not seen the light of day for 5 years or so.
And to our friends in England or elsewhere, is your country crime free?? I didnt think so. Crime is Crime
James
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:55:51 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Quickshutter:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Quickshutter:
BIG PROBLEM: The body armor used by law enforcement are not strong enough to stop a high velocity round that comes from the now un-banned weapons. Legalizing a larger clip is bad because it puts them back into production, so there will be more of them. The larger clip allows for more efective auto-mods and naturally less requirement of criminals to reload. I understand the use of firearms for personal defense, but who needs an assault weapon to defend themselves (unless they are in the middle east) |
The rounds fired from the now-unbanned weapons are no different, and travel no faster than those that can be used in previously un-banned weapons. The ONLY differences in the weapons are COSMETIC. The only difference in capacity is the now legal manufacture and sale of larger magazines. You can STILL only fire one round per trigger pull. If armour worked before, it still does. If it doesn't now, it never did. |
Not true. The changes are not only cosmetic. There are charicteristics of an assault weapon that increase their offencive killing power. telescoping or folding stocks allow for better concealment, bayonet mounts, flash supressors, grenade launchers, a barrel capable of attatching of an extender, scilencer, or forward handgrip, a heat shroud arround the barrel, having these things were previously banned, (2 or more from a longer list) and are now legal, allowing fore more deadly use. |
You say "Not True". So, perhaps you could enlighten us as to
1) how a telescoping or folding stock increases the offensive killing power as opposed to that which results from the use of non-banned weapons without telescoping or folding stocks
2) how a bayonet mount increases the offensive killing power as opposed to that which results from the use of non-banned weapons without a bayonet mount
3) how a flash suppressor increases the offensive killing power as opposed to that which results from the use of non-banned weapons without flash suppressors
4) how an extender increases the offensive killing power as opposed to that which results from the use of non-banned weapons without an extender
5) how a silencer increases the offensive killing power as opposed to that which results from the use of non-banned weapons without a silencer
6) how a forward handgrip increases the offensive killing power as opposed to that which results from the use of non-banned weapons without forward handgrips
7) how a heat shroud increases the offensive killing power as opposed to that which results from the use of non-banned weapons without heat shrouds
Note that I do grant that a grenade launcher might result in an increase of offensive killing power. But I'd be interested in your rationale for the others you claimed. Note also that I was responding to the charge that the newly un-banned assault weapons would be more powerful against body armour than previously non-banned weapons.
Ron |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 11:15:10 PM · #64 |
| can someone tell me where one might legally purchase a grenade for a launcher? |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 11:28:04 PM · #65 |
| god damnit. The answer is crime control not gun control. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 11:53:33 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by mrwaffles989:
god damnit. The answer is crime control not gun control. |
Short but sweet and a very good point...
for those who dont know, gun control means you can hit your target on the first shot......
as I said before im not a gun advocate, I do not support gun ownership rights as many other people do, but the mass public are blaming the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, all because they listen to the news media
James
James
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 12:39:35 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Men with little penises rejoice! |
hahahaha ya |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 01:10:35 AM · #68 |
I can see many people are greatly misinformed about not only the assault weapons law but firearms laws in general. The ban was nothing more that a farse. It didn't "ban" assault weapons. Before the ban was lifted I could go down and buy one any day of the week.
First off though the assault weapons ban wasn't even a ban. It didn't do anything to the criminals and hurt only people with legal right to own these weapons. Second the ban had NOTHING what so ever to do with fully automatic weapons (machine guns), which in our country have been regulated and taxed since the 1920's. ANYONE who has the legal right to own firearms in this country can go out and get a fully automatic class 2 or 3 firearm or a silencer once they pass a ATF background check, a state back ground check and fingerprinting, and can pay the $500 or $200 tax stamp on top the $2000-$60,000 cost of the firearm. The media is the one responsible for 98% of the misconceptions with this ban. This ban only did a few things and none of them did anything at all with stopping crime. If you look at the so called ban it you tell me how it "stopped crime" Here are the main things it did-
1.) stopped all rifles made after 94' from having a flash suppressor. Who cares abut that really?? Commercial ammo has a flash inhibitor to prevent flash so you wouldn't need a suppressor anyway. Only the military needs it since they don't use flash inhibitor in their ammo.
2.) Made it illegal to have a bayonet lug on guns made after 94'. When was the last time you heard of criminals attacking people with a bayonet on the end of their rifle???
3.)stopped guns from being made with magazines that held more than 10 rounds. Stupid law since all the companies did was make rifles and pistols that took the high capacity mags that were made before the ban and could still be owned and purchased after the ban.
4.) tried to get rid of pistol grips. What difference does a pistol grip make on a gun?? it doesn't make it more accurate if it did all sniper rifles would have one.
The whole law was ridiculous and did nothing what so ever for stopping crime. The USA has like 34,000 laws pertaining to firearms control and abuse and we can't even enforce those. Not that any of them would help stop crime if we could. If you look at the figures for deaths related to the so called "assault weapons" you will see they account for less than 1/2 of a percent of crime. All the weapons covered by this ban were still being made and sold minus the cosmetic's in the ban, the gun was still the same gun. The media making everyone think that assault weapon meant the issued military automatic rifle, is responsible for all the misconception.
Next, it is growing very tiresome hearing people like John Kerry say we don't need assault weapons to hunt with. That has nothing to do with why we have the right to bear arms. (BTW the shotgun Kerry held up at a recent rally as a gift was in a class he voted to ban, what a hypocrite.)
Machine guns, assault rifles, and other military weapons are exactly what our founding fathers meant for us to own. Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not sitting around one day saying, "You know old chap, I really fancy an outing of target shooting, or even a hunt. I think we should have the right to bear arms". No, they were thinking about how they had to defend themselves against a military force; a military force that had military style weapons. Assault rifles are the only rifles that give civilians a chance at defending themselves against a hostile military force.
HUNTING has nothing to do with why we have the right to bear arms. We have these weapons to defend our country against all threats both foreign and domestic. Our founding fathers came from a country that was ruled by an iron fisted tyrant. They knew they did not want some monarch who's only connection to power over the people was his birthright. Our fathers realized how ridiculous it was to give this kind of power to someone that did not deserve it, or to someone that was not sensible enough to use the power wisely. They were students of history. They knew absolute power corupts absolutely. That is why they set up our government the way they did. In the process, none of the states would ratify the constitution until the 2nd amendment was added. They knew they had to provide for a way to defend our freedom, then and in the future. They did so by giving us our gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is the only law we have that allows all of the other freedoms we have to remain in place. The right to bear arms is why we have the oldest and longest standing democratic constitution in the world. Without the right to defend your freedoms, sooner or later some power monger is going to come along and try to take them away.
Currently, while there are leftist liberals trying to take not only our gun rights away, but our way of living as independant Americans (They want to make this a socialist country), we are not at a point in American history were we need to be concerned with an immediate threat of some kind of tyrannical take over. Our country is fabulous, even with all of it's social probelms. Why do you think billions of people apply for residence here every day?
However, if we are continued to be forced to go abroad time and time again and assault terrorists on their turf without the backing of the UN (We do not need or want their permission to defend ourselves), it is a concern (granted a limited one) that one day in the future we might be forced to fend of invading UN forces.
What we do need to be immediately concerned with is the threat of terrorism. I would not be suprised if the bastards tried some crap here like they did recently in Russia. I guarantee if that happens, Americans will not let them walk out alive. Just like in Russia when the terrorists tried to escape the school and the citizens attacked them with the weapons they had, we will do the same. Only here we won't be attacking them with just shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles. If it happens to the British in England, maybe the coppers can beat them down with their clubs before they kill too many of them.
Funny thing about the British troops here before the revolutionary war that always stuck with me. When they said we didn't need the Military flintlock style rifles (assault rifles of the era) to defend ourselves because they were here to defend us, they ordered civilians to turn their weapons in. Guess what the Brits did when the citizens turned the assault weapons in? Well, at Lexington, the British, being the benevolent rulers that they were, shot and killed everyone of the gun owners...
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 02:17:09. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 02:27:36 AM · #69 |
I think this post belong here, too.
................................................
Originally posted by David Ey:
Why is it always a dead man whose memos are chosen to present proof?
Lets just say Bush and Kerry both did some stupid things thirty years ago. Why would one think Kerry would be a good president when he has done absolutely nothing but change his mind as a congressman? And he blames Bush for the laps of the assault weapons ban....good lord man, he was in congress where the ruling to renew would originate. Why did he not spearhead a motion? |
David Ey,
The answer to your question is simple:
1. Republicans control the House.
2. Republicans control the Senate.
3. Republicans control the Executive (Presidency).
4. Democrats are in the minority in both the House and the Senate, and they certainly don't control the Executive.
5. According to parliamentary/legislative procedure, the Rules Committee in both the House and the Senate must agree to bring a motion to the floor of their respective chambers. But hey, guess what, Republicans control the Rules Committee in the both the House and the Senate.
6. Since Democrats are in the minority in both chambers they cannot bring motions forward without the consent of the majority party, oh, that's right, the Republicans.
7. The National Rifle Association (NRA) clearly opposed the "Assault Weapons Ban," and the Republican party is clearly aligned with the NRA. For example, in 1999 alone, 81% of the political donations made by the NRA were made to the Republican party. (I couldn't find more recent figures.)
8. So, let's see, Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency, and one of their biggest supporters just happens to be the lobbying group of the weapons industry that just happens to oppose "Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban."
9. To sum up: Republicans and the NRA wanted the ban lifted and they had the means to do it.
10. Just some screen shots:
Lemme guess who does the NRA support?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 04:22:49 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
The right to bear arms is why we have the oldest and longest standing democratic constitution in the world. Without the right to defend your freedoms, sooner or later some power monger is going to come along and try to take them away. |
I see. So the only reason you manage to remain the leader of the free world is that your government is too afraid of being lynched to corrupt democracy. Where as in countries where gun ownership isn't enshrined in a constitution, we're under the heel of an oppressive dictatorship...
Your democratic credentials are a lot to do with the way your young country was formed and much less to do with the fact that your citizens are armed.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Currently, while there are leftist liberals trying to take not only our gun rights away, but our way of living as independant Americans (They want to make this a socialist country), we are not at a point in American history were we need to be concerned with an immediate threat of some kind of tyrannical take over. |
Ahh, the old "it's a commie conspiracy" argument! But wait, I'm confused - if you're not faced with an immediate threat of some kind of tyrannical take over then surely that removes the need for the well armed militia that the second amendment talks of...?!
Originally posted by Anachronite:
...it is a concern (granted a limited one) that one day in the future we might be forced to fend of invading UN forces. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Yyyyyeeesssssss. Keep an eye out for those black helicopters. Would you like to borrow my tin foil hat? Seriously, get a grip.
Originally posted by Anachronite:
If it happens to the British in England, maybe the coppers can beat them down with their clubs before they kill too many of them. |
Last time I checked we did still have armed rsponse police teams. We're only talking about the general populaton here.
Seriously, if your population is actually all wanting to clutch their semi-automatic weapons to their chests against the day that they are called upon to act as a militia against either your own oppressive government or the invading UN(?!) then that's absolutely fine. But is says an awful lot about your society if you genuinely feel it's necessary in a modern democracy.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:15:16 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by giega:
One still can use a musket to kill someone...
So if I shoot 1 round or 100, a kill is a kill. So the ban is a complete waste. |
What a totally ridiculous thing to say ...
So, if you were a cop, armed with a handgun, and had a choice of tackling the guy with the musket or the guy with the M16 you'd see them both as dangerous as each other?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 05:57:44 AM · #72 |
Well to a single cop, the argument could be made (well, assuming the attacker had pre-loaded the musket and was standing close enough to be a serious threat).
However, if there's more than one cop, or in a public place with other citizens around is a different matter. The original statement is true, but if you shoot 100 rounds then you are likely to manage more than one kill.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2004 12:07:51 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Oh well, I didn't realise I was talking to someone with a degree in Criminal Justice.
I stand corrected; everything you say must be true and I'm an asshat for suggesting another opinion or that guns were somehow intrinsically dangerous.
:-) |
I'm usually pretty liberal, and I did leave a flip comment. Despite my background I generally make emotional argument.
But, there seems no good reason to allow someone to collect a very dangerous weapon that they could "lose" and it could wind up in the hands of a criminal, and a cop could be killed or worse, a child. anyway, A bunk bed or swimming pool can't be lost or pawned and sold to criminal.
There are many dangerous things about life that we accept the risk for, the highways, the foods we eat, the safety of our children. There is no reasonable, justifiable reason to support the risks of assault weapon ownership. Not because someone wants a gun in his "collection." Collect hunting rifles and lock them up and keep them from your children. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 01:03:03 PM · #74 |
Lets compare and contrast interviews with Senetor Kerry and President Bush:
Outdoor Life: Are you a gun owner? If so, what is your favorite gun?
Bush: Yes. My favorite gun is a Weatherby, Athena 20-gauge (over/under).
Kerry: My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I donĂ¢€™t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.
-------------------------------------
So lets get this straight, Kerry is against YOU owning a gun that looks like the real McCoy. blindjustice take that into account, the guns that are now legal again are no more dangerous than ones that already are.
BUT it's OK for HIM to own an actual automatic assault rifle.
Hmmmm... so this can be either two things:
1. He's lying, just trying to make it look like he's into guns, which is BS given he doesn't know anything about hunting, nor gun safety, nor the legalities of firearms. Not to mentioned his work with banning them.
2. He actually does own an "Assault rifle" if it is a "communist assault rifle" then he owns an unregistered machinegun AND he doesn't have a class 3 liesense to have one. As such, that is a felony and will disbar him from the presidency. (If I remember correctly)
-------------------------------------
EDIT: Someone has just brought it to my attention that it could have also been a gift from the NVA. He is after all in their museum of heros for aiding and helping the NV WHILE WE WERE STILL AT WAR.
Message edited by author 2004-09-17 13:08:04. |
|
|
|
09/17/2004 02:36:13 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by jonr:
Men with little penises rejoice! |
hahahaha ya |
Is that you rejoicing? ;) |
|
