assault weapons ban!!

[Philbert]

You’re talking nonsense now. Your method of thinking is like saying… Ok, Jews can’t get along with Muslims over here (or X religion is continually at conflict with Y religion); therefore we can automatically infer that any multi-religious society is a bad thing. I say bullshit.

It’s just like I said… those places with people destroying each other because of cultural conflict are doing so because they refuse to accept each others cultures and cultural differences, and insist on making the other side conform to their own culture. Thus you will inventively have conflict. But just because two idiots cant get along because of their cultural differences doesn’t mean multiculturalism on the whole is a bad thing.

Right over your head, huh?
Sorry your reading comprehension is so low, but what I said is still a very valid point.
You can say bullshit all day long, doesn't change a thing.

No one who has the ability to see things as they are would infer that having many religions in a country is a bad thing; in the USA we encourage diversity and protect it, unlike places that expel and assault other cultures.
A culture that demands control of any aspect of a government is always going to clash with other cultures.

In the USA there are laws that prohibt this, did you just miss that in school?There is a constant struggle to keep the public area as neutral as possible, and keep personal beliefs private. I can go to my schul when I want, wear a Talus and Yalmuke everywhere I go; I can't force you to do the same.
Serbia went apeshit on it's Muslim populace; we don't slaughter 7th Day Adventists in the USA. We are a unicultural country, American, and many cultural groups do their thing here every day.
To lump diversity with multicultualism is talking nonsense, not recognizing the difference between the two is simple minded .

The Rawandan genocide is a result of multiculturism, not diversity. Where one culture clashes with another, and the government supports one or the other, then there is war and catastrophe.

If Muslims in the UK attempt to enforce Sharia Law in the UK, there would be cultural conflict. Common Law is designed to provide space for individuals to coexist in the same space, not one or the other to dominate.
While there will always be those who seek to dominate others with their specific way of thinking, the more effective system is one that allows diversity to exist within a common framework.

Maybe you don't see this, but it is a major difference in so many countries where either genocide can and does occur, and those where people hurl insults at each other on a website, and then go do whatever they want to do surrounded by various Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, atheists, and whoever.

Werewolf's statement that this is "racism" shows a lack of comprehension; racism is a word that has a specific definition, and I fail to see the "crushing" of a specific race due solely to their existence. I don't like a lot of things, but I live with it in the general sense. I don't play Hip Hop in my apartment, but don't set fire to any car I hear playing Hip Hop on their sound system.

Good luck with that comprehension problem.

 

[AFA]

well I have to say that i didnt think that this thread was going to get this much this fast.

Did you notice that none of the responsible gun owner's here have opened fire on each other yet? Maybe they don't need any ignorant politicians looking for new offices to make their decisions for them?

A gun? Absolutely. A thief never knows whether that next guy is strapped or not.

Husband gone crazy? He usually stalks his wife and kids with a rifle or a shotty he bought from Wal-Mart. NOT an assault weapon.

I would never tell you what to say, but as I think you know, the term, "assault rifle", is misused by politicians and the media to describe guns that look like military full auto rifles but are not. It's a term incorporated into the terminology of frightened people who remember that full auto shootout with the police in California some years ago. Those real "assault rifles", are illegal as you know and trying to convert a rifle to shoot like a sub machine gun is also a felony.

So when Hillary, Feinstein or Schumer talk about taking away "assault rifles", they are talking about taking semi-auto guns from homeowner's that are military in look only, while there is already a ban on real, "assault rifles", that people remember from that Police shootout.

The 1994 ban determined that, (unlike a Beretta shotgun), if it had 3 or 4 of the following it would need to be banned;

Pistol grip
box magazine
black
bayonet lug
flash hider

That's like me saying if it has, tires, windows, lights, doors, or seats, it must be a Mercedes Benz.

 

[xxaru]

Right over your head, huh?
Sorry your reading comprehension is so low, but what I said is still a very valid point.
You can say bullshit all day long, doesn't change a thing.

No one who has the ability to see things as they are would infer that having many religions in a country is a bad thing; in the USA we encourage diversity and protect it, unlike places that expel and assault other cultures.
A culture that demands control of any aspect of a government is always going to clash with other cultures.

In the USA there are laws that prohibt this, did you just miss that in school?There is a constant struggle to keep the public area as neutral as possible, and keep personal beliefs private. I can go to my schul when I want, wear a Talus and Yalmuke everywhere I go; I can't force you to do the same.
Serbia went apeshit on it's Muslim populace; we don't slaughter 7th Day Adventists in the USA. We are a unicultural country, American, and many cultural groups do their thing here every day.
To lump diversity with multicultualism is talking nonsense, not recognizing the difference between the two is simple minded .

The Rawandan genocide is a result of multiculturism, not diversity. Where one culture clashes with another, and the government supports one or the other, then there is war and catastrophe.

If Muslims in the UK attempt to enforce Sharia Law in the UK, there would be cultural conflict. Common Law is designed to provide space for individuals to coexist in the same space, not one or the other to dominate.
While there will always be those who seek to dominate others with their specific way of thinking, the more effective system is one that allows diversity to exist within a common framework.

Maybe you don't see this, but it is a major difference in so many countries where either genocide can and does occur, and those where people hurl insults at each other on a website, and then go do whatever they want to do surrounded by various Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddists, atheists, and whoever.

Werewolf's statement that this is "racism" shows a lack of comprehension; racism is a word that has a specific definition, and I fail to see the "crushing" of a specific race due solely to their existence. I don't like a lot of things, but I live with it in the general sense. I don't play Hip Hop in my apartment, but don't set fire to any car I hear playing Hip Hop on their sound system.

Good luck with that comprehension problem.

You act like people don’t know the meaning of the word culture. I know what culture is (and so do many others on this thread).. .and I’ll say it FOR THE THIRD TIME… it’s not multiculturalism that’s the problem, it’s closed minded people that want to force their culture on others and make them conform to their cultural views that are the problem.

You can talk about laws and all the other bullshit you want, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You can try to resort to insulting me and my reading comprehension, but it still doesn’t get your point across… it only makes you come off looking like an idiot.

Multiculturalism never hurt anyone. It never destroyed any countries. Idiotic, closed minded people do. That’s the bottom line. People of different cultures CAN exist together as one. If you want to try to use multiculturalism as an excuse for the conflict that takes place in the world, then that’s on you; but Im not buying it. It’s the unaccepting people, not the mix of culture. I guess you believe multiculturalism is what caused 9/11 too...

 

[pathfinder]

As I understand it the latest and great of the AWB has no supporters or co-signers and will not be very likely to get passed. It's one of many that will roll through the hill. The next one will not have as much teeth. And the one after that just a little less. Their hope is to get people to sign off on one by way of compromise... "Well, this one isn't nearly as 'bad' as the other one. It seems reasonable...".

While you should still contact your representatives and voice your opinion on any and all AWB's, the one that is practically all encompassing and is essentially a complete gun bad will never get passed in our lifetime.

 

[Kingfisher]

Amazing, the amount and type of responses. This type of discussion always comes out one way, everyone agrees to disagree. And other issues always creep in, that weren't part of the original thread, but we're all human, and everyone has an opinion, which is why we all discuss it in this type of atmosphere. There's two camps, the ones that have, use, or enjoy firearms, and the ones that don't and most likely live in a city where the Police force is on top of the job and they feel safe, we feel safe.
But we all agree, the world would be a better place if it was crime free, but when will that happen?
When I was growing up, my small town had a dedicated police force, most of the people were professionals and older retired folks left over from Korea and WW2. If you saw a bum on the street, the Police would scoop him up, take him to the border of the town, point and say don't come back. As a kid I never really thgouht about it, I knew the town was safe.
My Dad, a Vietnam vet, 3 tours, only had a shotgun. And growing up, I never thought much about it. He showed me how to shoot it, and that was it.
It wasn't until some extensive training, and still having all my parts and peices, that afterwards I bought my first gun.
I have a couple, and I still enjoy shooting, and I think that's what it comes down to, like somebody telling you, you can't buy that Honda, and you can not get the accessories you want on the Jeep.
I can understand the general Police Force wanting to be safe on the job and I'm not denying them that, in fact I want them to be safe. But the common citizen is not the problem, it is the criminal. But when the State requires you to wait a certain amount of days, after the fact, once you've already purchased a handgun or long gun, it doesn't make sense. 30 days. Let's say I buy one handgun, I have to wait 30 days to buy something else, if I wanted to. Okay, fine, I'll just use the gun I already have, or 10 days "cooling off" time or "background check", fine, I'll just use the gun I already have.
I think what I'm saying is, that lawmakers through all these laws out there, with little subattachements in order to fulfill something that only motivates the career of the "lawmaker."
You wouldn't want that ATV park closed down right, or for them to take away our cigarettes, or to place a speed limiter on your vechile making you only go 35. Would you. After awhile it all falls into the same hopper.
And while we're talking about this, they're driving around in limos, paid by your tax dollars, and buying art for the office, on your dime. Don't forget that the gas card they use is paid for by you.

 

[pathfinder]

It's a right. Plain and simple. It's not up the the politicians or the judges to interpret the Bill of Rights to suit their intentions/agendas. Just like flag burning is protected by the 1st, firearms ownership is protected by the 2nd. If you don't want a gun it's just as much your right NOT to exercise your right to one.

"Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt"

Just like the war on drugs only keeps the honest people in line, the laws against gun ownership only affect those who will follow them.

Banning the manufacturing of guns will change nothing... just like the prohibition didn't stop people from making alcohol.

Statistically, areas where gun ownership is common and encouraged and where CCW is legal, the rate of certain crimes tends to be lower. Why? Because criminals don't like to get shot.

 

[AFA]

Amazing, the amount and type of responses. This type of discussion always comes out one way, everyone agrees to disagree. And other issues always creep in, that weren't part of the original thread, but we're all human, and everyone has an opinion, which is why we all discuss it in this type of atmosphere. There's two camps, the ones that have, use, or enjoy firearms, and the ones that don't and most likely live in a city where the Police force is on top of the job and they feel safe, we feel safe.
But we all agree, the world would be a better place if it was crime free, but when will that happen?
When I was growing up, my small town had a dedicated police force, most of the people were professionals and older retired folks left over from Korea and WW2. If you saw a bum on the street, the Police would scoop him up, take him to the border of the town, point and say don't come back. As a kid I never really thgouht about it, I knew the town was safe.
My Dad, a Vietnam vet, 3 tours, only had a shotgun. And growing up, I never thought much about it. He showed me how to shoot it, and that was it.
It wasn't until some extensive training, and still having all my parts and peices, that afterwards I bought my first gun.
I have a couple, and I still enjoy shooting, and I think that's what it comes down to, like somebody telling you, you can't buy that Honda, and you can not get the accessories you want on the Jeep.
I can understand the general Police Force wanting to be safe on the job and I'm not denying them that, in fact I want them to be safe. But the common citizen is not the problem, it is the criminal. But when the State requires you to wait a certain amount of days, after the fact, once you've already purchased a handgun or long gun, it doesn't make sense. 30 days. Let's say I buy one handgun, I have to wait 30 days to buy something else, if I wanted to. Okay, fine, I'll just use the gun I already have, or 10 days "cooling off" time or "background check", fine, I'll just use the gun I already have.
I think what I'm saying is, that lawmakers through all these laws out there, with little subattachements in order to fulfill something that only motivates the career of the "lawmaker."
You wouldn't want that ATV park closed down right, or for them to take away our cigarettes, or to place a speed limiter on your vechile making you only go 35. Would you. After awhile it all falls into the same hopper.
And while we're talking about this, they're driving around in limos, paid by your tax dollars, and buying art for the office, on your dime. Don't forget that the gas card they use is paid for by you.

I always said that. My contention is that cooling off periods are ridiculous. Instead of just cooling off, I can hit my wife with the baseball bat. Taking guns out of the hands of the public does nothing to make the Police safer. I think it's okay to say, that most all citizens, would assist the Police whenever possible, so it's not like chasing a bad buy through L.A., everyone opens fire on them. Just the bad guys do that and they are in the small minority. Cocaine is also illegal, and responsible citizens don't buy it, but it's out there with illegal guns for anyone with enough money. Gun bans disarm honest law abiding citizens, while doing nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of robbers, killers, rapists, etc.

 

[Red Spyder]

how about just passing a law against murder....oh, wait.

Laws only affect the law abiding. I don't think we need more of them but just to enforce the laws we got right now. People who commit a crime with a firearm should get the maximum penalty, and if like here in Texas the maximum is the death sentence, it should be carried out ASAP before said murdering asshole become some kind of celebrity and the dumbass lefties out there forget the reason why the guy is in death row in the first place.

I don't own a gun but I really am very pro 2nd amendment.

 

[AFA]

Most homicides I believe are spontaneous, using whatever is on hand. Cooling off means you already left the house to drive to the gun shop.
"Hang on a minute, have you seen my keys? I'm going to drive to the store to buy a gun and then come back", sounds a little silly to me. :jester:

 

[Torre82]

how about just passing a law against murder....oh, wait.

Laws only affect the law abiding. I don't think we need more of them but just to enforce the laws we got right now. People who commit a crime with a firearm should get the maximum penalty, and if like here in Texas the maximum is the death sentence, it should be carried out ASAP before said murdering asshole become some kind of celebrity and the dumbass lefties out there forget the reason why the guy is in death row in the first place.

I don't own a gun but I really am very pro 2nd amendment.

I think it's important to note that laws prevent nothing. Laws only punish the majority of people who broke them. Still, it's pretty much a big country where you are who you say you are. Go start a new life.

 

[calpoon]

I gotta qoute Chris Rock on this one.

We don't need gun control. we need some bullet control. I think bullets should cost 5,000 dollars each. that way there'd be no more innocent bystanders. you'd be like, "damn, they put 100,000 dollars worth of bullets in this motherfucker! He must've done something to deserve it!" and people would think before they shot someone. I would fuckin blow you away... if I could afford it. I'm gonna get a second job, take out a loan on my house, and then you're dead!

 

[pathfinder]

I gotta qoute Chris Rock on this one.
We don't need gun control. we need some bullet control.

Sadly they're not far from trying that.

 

[glk35]

I gotta qoute Chris Rock on this one.

We don't need gun control. we need some bullet control. I think bullets should cost 5,000 dollars each. that way there'd be no more innocent bystanders. you'd be like, "damn, they put 100,000 dollars worth of bullets in this motherfucker! He must've done something to deserve it!" and people would think before they shot someone. I would fuckin blow you away... if I could afford it. I'm gonna get a second job, take out a loan on my house, and then you're dead!

wont happen. reloading is easy and inexpensive. and even if they tried to make the reloading components higher you can easily pour your own bullets.

 

[Philbert]

Sigh...
One thing people haven't really dealt with is the other side of personal violence...
Firing a firearm is NOT an easy thing to do. A flash of intense rage and violence can be quick and deadly. Believe me, a bottle, a hammer, anything solid in the hands of an enraged person can kill, and a lot quieter than a gun.
Some people aren't unused to the mind-numbing blast of ear-ringing sound, the intense flash of light and smoke even a single shot produces, but most people don't fire their weapons that often.
And a shot person is very messy...
I once fired my .45 auto accidently in my living room...long story, but it was pointed safely while I handled it.
I was deaf for a few minutes, then my ears were ringing for quite a while. I was semi-stunned from one closed room shot.
Guns are easier for weaker people to even the playing field, when it comes to personal violence. But, the crazed and weak are a scary gun toting crowd (gangbangers and under-18s, hormone-wracked angry GFs and drunk lostboys).
So, it's mostly the more crazed among us who engage in gun violence; when the situation is extreme the "normal" gun owner will use their gun, but most I have known (not all) have avoided using their firearms in all but the most extreme need situations.
"Gun class" certification for firearm ownership is something that will eventually be a requirement; but it's the larger group of give a shit people that will shoot you while taking your SUV or Bling and wallet, or eliminate t'other 'bangers and take your HD TV and stuff doing a home invasion.
They like shooting, there oughta be a law...
I hope for the best; real enforced denial to the unfit and legal ownership continued as it is.
Too many people already and more on the way!

 

[calpoon]

wont happen. reloading is easy and inexpensive. and even if they tried to make the reloading components higher you can easily pour your own bullets.

perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of comedy. see, it's generally where someone takes a normal scenario and then describes it in a fantastic and out-of-the ordinary way, so that the result is something that is surprising and unexpected. by exagerating the circumstances the comedian makes an insight into the values and processes in which people live there lives, and when this truth is revealed to people coupled with an absurd picture the reaction is typically that of laughter.

 

[glk35]

perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of comedy. see, it's generally where someone takes a normal scenario and then describes it in a fantastic and out-of-the ordinary way, so that the result is something that is surprising and unexpected. by exagerating the circumstances the comedian makes an insight into the values and processes in which people live there lives, and when this truth is revealed to people coupled with an absurd picture the reaction is typically that of laughter.

perhaps you are just unfamiliar with how somone can feel strongly on a subject, and when one person has already invalidated that, that the other person might not find any of what the other has to say at the least bit funny. Now back to the thread.:thumbsup:

 

[calpoon]

well, I'm not posting simply for your audience, so I don't give a shit. If whatever I have to say invalidates your beliefs, then maybe you need to question just how strong they really are. nonetheless, my posts are relevent and say more than just humour. perhaps you need to look up the meaning of things like subtle and undertone as well.

 

[Philbert]

well, I'm not posting simply for your audience, so I don't give a shit. If whatever I have to say invalidates your beliefs, then maybe you need to question just how strong they really are. nonetheless, my posts are relevent and say more than just humour. perhaps you need to look up the meaning of things like subtle and undertone as well.

Why would anyone need to look up those words to read your posts?

 

[glk35]

well, I'm not posting simply for your audience, so I don't give a shit. If whatever I have to say invalidates your beliefs, then maybe you need to question just how strong they really are. nonetheless, my posts are relevent and say more than just humour. perhaps you need to look up the meaning of things like subtle and undertone as well.

so how do people feel about freedom of speech. is it important to have? should other people be able to tell you what you should believe or say? some people would die defending that right. why not? its a right. think about what you believe in and how you feel if and when that gets attacked now try and think about how others would feel about it. Thats somthing i dont think these people in office do, and should. a lot of people should. noone will ever tell me that i cant hunt fish or shoot. just like i cant ever tell anyone not to voice their opinion.

 

[Member2019]

It's not about beliefs ...

well, I'm not posting simply for your audience, so I don't give a shit. If whatever I have to say invalidates your beliefs, then maybe you need to question just how strong they really are.

My biggest problem is that people who know US history are constantly berrated by those who say such things like you just did ...

If whatever I have to say invalidates your beliefs, then maybe you need to question just how strong they really are.

If you have "beliefs," so be it, they are your "beliefs."
But what several people other than myself have tried to point out that at the time the First Amendment was written by the people and their state representatives,
written because the majority of the people and their states of the United Stated would NOT approve the federal Constitution,
the big, huge-ass #2 was the Second Amendment right after it.
That goes a little "beyond" the alleged "beliefs" and more about the history of the American Republic.

Furthermore, if you take the time to read some of the literature on the subject, I believe you will find that many of the arguments we are having today are relatively unchanged from that time period as well.
People feared guns back then like they do today, made arguments about the non-necessity of hunting and pure focus on agriculture, etc...