assault weapons ban!!

[nylo]

Has it occurred to anyone that creating a ban does nothing. Do you think the average criminal obtains his weapons by legal means? give me a break.
Now the violence on tv thing I agree with to a point, but riddle me this....
Why is it ok to watch people getting their asses shot off and blood and gore and etc on the the tv. But oh no a woman bares her breast on the tv, or they show nudity or whathaveyou and all of a sudden people are out to lynch one another...such bullshit if you ask me

 

[meesterperfect]

Anybody who thinks more gun control laws will decrease the level of violent crimes is a fucking idiot.

"And thats all I have to say about that" Forest Gump (shrimp boat captain)

 

[AFA]

but do you agree with me that the violence on tv is not to blame?

No but sorry I honestly can't. I think people who are very small suddenly feel very big when holding any weapon. I think TV violence often capitalizes on this fantasy. Others see weapons as tools, or sporting equipment.

Has it occurred to anyone that creating a ban does nothing. Do you think the average criminal obtains his weapons by legal means? give me a break.
Now the violence on tv thing I agree with to a point, but riddle me this....
Why is it ok to watch people getting their asses shot off and blood and gore and etc on the the tv. But oh no a woman bares her breast on the tv, or they show nudity or whathaveyou and all of a sudden people are out to lynch one another...such bullshit if you ask me

People get conditioned to it and that makes it okay. It's the same as advertising a new car or shaving cream. If you see it enough, you end up buying it. It's subliminal.

All hunting rifles are high powered, that's not the argument. The argument has to do with the type of feed used to get the ammunition into the weapon itself.

In 1994, the feed mechanism wasn't the issue, it was if it was black with a flash hider, pistol grip and box magazine. Unlike a Weatherby shotgun, it made it an assault weapon.

Semi-automatic weapons can be converted to automatic.
Feeds can be changed to take very large magazines.
All this law does is prevent law abiding citizens from doing such.
The people the law is trying to stop have no such interest in abiding by it.

Everyone in Switzerland owns an automatic rifle, and there is no where near the level of violence there as in the US. Some deeper questions about the formal and informal education of people have to be answered as to why this is so off the charts.

Fox, they don't have guns in the UK, but they have bombs in the transit system.
When George Harrison was attacked in his London apartment some years ago, the intruder used a knife, also a weapon, or a tool. We probably can also use a ban on gasoline, (used in arsons), a ban on baseball bats, (used in gang violence), and automobiles (used in countless unnecessary deaths every year).

 

[Member2019]

Roughneck, as usual, is "old school American" (thank God), plus AFA has a point ...

1. The Constitution doesn't say anything about privacy - should we do away with privacy?
If that were the case, you have no business protesting about the PATRIOT Act.

This is my #1 issue with Democrats and the left.
They want to "selectively limit" everyone's freedoms while increasing government and social which takes away "capitalistic freedoms" as well.
Double-whammy that takes down the entire philosophical foundation of the United States.

I don't like the Republicans for the PATRIOT Act, especially after they made certain sections permanent.
But at least they can make a partial argument (it doesn't hold at all, but I have to give them this) that they are trying to "stop the bad guys" and not take away everyone's freedom.
Again, it doesn't hold, and goes directly against the ideals of Jefferson, but at least it doesn't always affect every law abiding citizen directly (indirectly, very much so).

If Dems and the left truly believed in Jeffersonian Democrat-Republican ideals like I do, like the US Libertarian party does,
they'd be fighting their own party and its platform as much as the PATRIOT Act and the Republican platform.
Thank God for "old school Americans" like Roughneck or I'd be dying here!

2. The Right to Free Speech was also set in the Bill of Rights at the same time, yet I don't see you arguing in favor of it's demise.

This cannot be emphasized enough!
The majority of US states would not ratify the US Constitution, it was completely stalled.
Other than the few, small states (who quickly ratified it largely because of the Great Compromise), most states did not like the powerful, single federation.

The whole Bill of Rights was drafted not by the Continental Congress, but the people and their state representatives.
Over 100 articles were sent, and 10 adopted with the most "valued" at the top of the list.
I would dare anyone to actually read Benjamin Franklin's thoughts on the matter -- and realize that his arguemetns are still very much 21st century!

No but sorry I honestly can't.
I think people who are very small suddenly feel very big when holding any weapon.
I think TV violence often capitalizes on this fantasy.
Others see weapons as tools, or sporting equipment.

For once I'd like to see our US TV sport a "big cock" on a woman in such a way.
We'd be disgusted, and someone should make the point that this is how we are no longer disgusted by firearms like we are sex.

In fact, the guy with the "big cock" should say ... "Make my day, bitch!"
That's in direct reference to Dirty Harry, which we've come to idolize as a "real man."

People get conditioned to it and that makes it okay.
It's the same as advertising a new car or shaving cream.
If you see it enough, you end up buying it. It's subliminal.

Yep, we've gotten used to violence and killing and "the bigger man."
Again, maybe the porn industry -- at least the "less degrading" members -- should consider such an advertisement.

It's more than "make love not war," it's more about "show your neighbor kindness, not that yours is bigger."

 

[D-rock]

"Whence" - you talk like an Oxford professor, trust me, I know no offence of course. About the amendment, those ancient sacred American texts are sacred, but they are not immovable. They will not stand forever. When we come up with a better way to do things, they will change.

The constitution has an amendment process. That's the only way it should be changed, not by some politician or judge or event he majority in there moment of panic. If not enough people want to change it, or it's too hard, then too fucking bad. Our founders knew that people were fickle and prone to stupid decisions when situations get bad. That's and to keep tyranny in check is the reason we have guaranteed rights.

It may happen in your lifetime, it may not. Believing we must do everything according to them without question is a bit like... being highly religious. Not saying you believe that, just making my point.

They are based off of rights bestowed by nature that are inherent to being alive and human. Either given to you by nature or nature’s God depending on whether you believe in him or just in nature itself. Self-defense along with being able to reasonably execute that defense is one of those rights. They were never meant be rights that people could just go wily nily with whenever a politician or judge didn't like something.

In England we don't have guns. Nobody gets shot. You can get stabbed, bottled, beaten up, tazered, pellet gunned, air rifled, but you can't get shot. Virtually no-one, ever, gets shot. You can't get shot by the cops, you can't get shot by the criminals. Once in awhile it happens, but it is the extremely unlikely exception, not the rule.

In most of the well-developed European countries the crime rate is lower for two reasons. The first one is economics. While some people are poor in them, they are not in abject poverty like in some places of the USA. A good example of this is health care and other way the government takes care of the people. For crime the biggest reason there are problems with it world wide is more often than not economic in nature.

The second reason is inner city gangs. I read somewhere that if you took out gangbanger on gangbanger action the murder rate drops to a point a lot closer to European countries that don't have guns at all. Even a lot of this problem can be related to the first one, economics. When you have people living in crappy conditions without any hope things like that will happen. That's not an inanimate objects fault.

Now does the mere fact guns exist mean that there is more shootings? Yes, it's a little hard to get shot without any guns. Then again that's why there is the saying freedom isn't free. One of the prices we have to pay for eternal vigilance and freedom is the fact we might not always be as safe as we could under a totalitarian regime.

It should be up to the people of America whether we have guns, not the politicians. We must go to the polls and decide. It is the people's choice, not ours. It should be on the ballot every year, because so many people are shot to death, in case people change their minds over time.

Ok, so should the return of slavery be on the ballot every year. How about the end of free speech, or the removal reasonable search and seasure. How about select discrimination. I guess people that want to keep those no matter what must be viewed as highly and mindlessly religious also. Keep in mind that some day, maybe in the far future maybe not so far, there will be a time where the majority might want to remove those rights. Being able to protect myself from future tryanny of the government is my analianble right. Unless you think there is nothing that should garentee people should be free. Then again I guess that's just some funny religious concept.

In fact the right to bear arms is the keeper of all the other rights. It's the last final check of the government. It’s what truly makes the government rule by the people. A person that points to a piece of paper when asked what protects their rights is a subject. A person that points to their rifle is a free man. I have to laugh at what some people believe. What do you think, the constitution is going to spring out of it's container and stand between you and a group of tanks that are coming to get you when the time comes? It's the people that make those rights exists and only the people, though force if necessary, that can keep them.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

If you don't like it get out... I never heard that one before. Where I come from we fight for change instead of running away from what we don't like. Until you start rounding up us tree huggers and putting us in ghettos (you have those here apparently ) we'll keep standing for what we believe in, right here in our home, and yours. Just like you do.

Yeah, except for one BIG difference...I don't want to deny you, or anybody else there Constitutional rights, and I see no reason to do that...however, you and your ilk see no problem with pissing on the rights of anyone that stands in the way of the rights YOU hold sacred...like calling soldiers murderers. Oh, thats right...it's your First Amendment right to freedom of speech, it's your right to protest a Government that provides you with all the rights you want...and the ones you want to take away from others. It's your right to live in a Country that lets you dream of that perfect peaceful utopia where everyone loves everyone...ohhh, lets all hug...we'll throw away our guns, and all the criminals will see the err of there ways...it will always be sunny. Grow the fuck up...your problem is, you spent to much time in collages, and not enough time in reality land...fact of life time....you will never, EVER see the world the way you want it to be...it won't work, you and your kind are in the minority, and fading fast...why? Because as you grow up, and get jobs, and make money...you get power...and then you become the corrupt assholes you once fought against...except your worse, because you should know better.

 

[Member2019]

Now does the mere fact guns exist mean that there is more shootings?
Yes, it's a little hard to get shot without any guns.

The AK-47 is not manufactured in the US, and it's supposed to be "very difficult" to acquire legitimately.
So how come it's readily and easily available to those who don't abide by the law?
In fact, Russia has stepped up almost an unrestricted export program just recently (don't get me started on the "the Soviet is dead, so what?"),
so it's only going to get worse.

Ok, so should the return of slavery be on the ballot every year.

NOTE: this is not directed at you D-rock, just anyone who may be thinking a certain way

FYI, there was never a US Constitutional article or amendment that authorized slavery,
only an article on how much a "slave" would count as in the number of constituents for representation purpose.
And evne that wasn't part of the US Bill of Rights, which should never be confused with the US Constitution.
The latter was written by federated legislators, the former was written by the people and their state representatives.
And they were written against the US Constitution in its original form, which was too powerful.

There is only the Thirteenth Amendment that specifically forbids slavery, among other things.
In fact, most US Amendments are not written to restrict freedoms, but to guarantee them when Legislative or Judicial Law fails to.
I swear there are so many people on here who need a course in ethics ... sorry, don't mean to be an arrogant SOB, but it gets to me.

 

[Philbert]

Nice to see you have so much respect for those people you're debating with.

Boy, if we ever saw eye to eye on something, this is definitely a biggie, Fox.

Hey, those who can't quite find it in them to discuss something rationally, could you please go out and insult someone mean and large who can respond to your attitude in person? It's pretty much a double negative when someone tries to make a point and resorts to insults and flaming; I read " I can't really think of anything relevant, so I'll just get rude and "scary" to cover up my lack of thought."

ProfV, thanks for the insights...roughneck, I always learn something from your efforts, please continue to do the serious research you post for those of us not quite as careful of our "facts"!

"Guns kill" is a factual statement that can be used to bolster both sides of an arguement; "Guns kill when you point them and pull the trigger" is a much more accurate factoid and isn't quite as easy to adapt to the general viewpoint of both sides of a gun control arguement.
Many facts are not 2 sided, just selective stating of them can be.

Whatever...

 

[kingdenman]

Everyone in Switzerland owns an automatic rifle, and there is no where near the QUOTE]

I thought it was only serving members of the Swiss home militia who kept an assault rifle and a sealed tin of ammunition in their homes....... Saying 'everyone has' is like saying everyone in the U.S. has a tommy gun. Availability of firearms is only one part of the equation, and I believe statistics may reinforce the importance of cultural identity. In Canada firearms use is widespread although we have strict regulations regarding the carrying of concealed weapons. The murder rate and crime rates using firearms (per capita) remain low however. What handguns do show up in crimes are often proven to have come up from the United States illegally. Of course we still have our shootings.... Max finds his girl Lurleen with his pal in the truck in front of the bar and lets them both have it through the back of the cab..... most murders are commited for little or no reason. It's lamentable but as far as I can see inevitable. As far as these kids blowing all their peers and teachers away, we have to address teenage angst and bullying soon, or it's going to keep happening.

 

[Member2019]

"Guns kill" is a factual statement ...
"Guns kill when you point them and pull the trigger" is a much more accurate factoid ...

The difference between legal owners and outlaws is this.
Legal owners don't point a gun at someone unless they intent to kill them with it.
Outlaws use guns to create what fear, intimidation, etc... they need.

If every citizen was taught how to use and respect a firearm, including the fact that you never point it at someone or something unless you intent to kill them or it,
then there would be a lot less issues.
I'm serious, you don't point a gun at anyone or anything unless your next move is to shoot it!
I'm not even a gun owner and I know this.

It's also why I am for laws that throw people in prison for aiming a gun at anyone, which is the law we have here in Florida.
At the same time, we have corresponding laws to protect those who kill people in self-defense.

 

[MRPIMPN4EVA]

Anybody who thinks more gun control laws will decrease the level of violent crimes is a fucking idiot.

"And thats all I have to say about that" Forest Gump (shrimp boat captain)

Cosign.....

 

[AFA]

I thought it was only serving members of the Swiss home militia who kept an assault rifle and a sealed tin of ammunition in their homes....... Saying 'everyone has' is like saying everyone in the U.S. has a tommy gun. Availability of firearms is only one part of the equation, and I believe statistics may reinforce the importance of cultural identity? In Canada firearms use is widespread although we have strict regulations regarding the carrying of concealed weapons. The murder rate and crime rates using firearms (per capita) remain low however. What handguns do show up in crimes are often proven to have come up from the United States illegally. Of course we still have our shootings.... Max finds his girl Lurleen with his pal in the truck in front of the bar and lets them both have it through the back of the cab..... most murders are commited for little or no reason. It's lamentable but as far as I can see inevitable. As far as these kids blowing all their peers and teachers away, we have to address teenage angst and bullying soon, or it's going to keep happening.

That's just it, I could be wrong, but thought everyone in Switzerland is semi active military, or did that change recently? (I now see it did in 2003). Also notice how clean the place is. It's clear that there is something going on in American culture that makes it okay to throw your coffee cup on a lawn as long as the owner isn't your neighbor or a friend in your "group". :dunno:

 

[AFA]

Here's something interesting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intlhomrate.svg

And here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Homoffendersbyage.svg

the other graph from this page doesn't work;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

 

[ninetysixcavy]

"I think we'd all be a lot safer to lose self-serving politicians, violence on TV and in movies and keep the guns."

you said that it would be a lot safer to get rid of tv violence and keep the real guns. that in itself is an apparition. if this was true, it world be unearthly. a supernatural occurence. but, my point was, i like watching violent movies. im a huge fan of horror and action movies. so are a lot of people. so, if you get rid of tv violence, there go some fun movies and tv shows. meanwhile, real guns are still in the hands of gangbangers pulling drive-bys. :2 cents:

Criminals will always have guns. I grew up in a rough neighborhood (still there) and ALL the criminals have guns; everyone of them. I know because I used to sell drugs.

They disarmed citizens in Nazi Germany and look what happened there.

"If the government takes away your right to bear and keep arms, the country's no good to live in anymore." Unknown English Guy.

Should we be allowed to own guns? I say hell no...

Over my cold dead hands. I'd rather burn myself to death like those monks in India than let the most evil crinimal organization in the world (the U.S. Gov.) take my right to protect my family away from me. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Shrub boy and his Nazi cronies will never enforce that upon me. They have taken enough rights away from us, and they have allowed 30 million illegals to rome among our families....and they want to take the gun out of my hand to protect my little boys and girls.....the FUCK outta here.

 

[AFA]

Criminals will always have guns. I grew up in a rough neighborhood (still there) and ALL the criminals have guns; everyone of them. I know because I used to sell drugs.

They disarmed citizens in Nazi Germany and look what happened there.

"If the government takes away your right to bear and keep arms, the country's no good to live in anymore." Unknown English Guy.

The graphs from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States I posted above dramatize this. The peak age group for gun violence is 18-24, prime gang age I would think. On the other hand the other graph shows about 35% of homicides are committed with a gun. So there are still killers out there without guns, and I don't think the homicide rate will drop a whole lot when people go back to using knives. However the number of innocent victims not able to defend themselves might go straight up.

I'm sure the statistics I originally saw about the gun ban in Australia were that it wasn't working and Australia was originally looked at like a test case for anti-gun lobbists in the U.S.

I am also thinking in states with liberal gun laws, guns act as a deterent to crime.

Gun laws by state;
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/Gun_Laws_by_State.htm

 

[AFA]

I think politicians and the media play up gun violence, and mostly in hard to get gun states. My local news broadcasts a lot of stories of how elders defended themselves with a gun, or how a robbery was twarted by a gun owner at a convenience store. :dunno:


Researchers find concealed gun laws have little effect
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1998/February/erfebruary.2/2_2_98GunLaws.html

 

[ninetysixcavy]

96 Cavy edit:
PS
What monks in India burn themselves to death? That's some scary shit!
PPS
The 30 million illegals aren't the ones who will try shoot your family, it's your family and friends, I told you. As a non-gang-related American, your chances of being shot by a friend or family in a heated fight or even premeditated, are far far higher than your chances of being shot by a gangbanger or one of those 30 million illegals that you so detest, 99% of whom by the way, are here to work and help their families, not shoot yours.

You do realize there are strict regulations for who can and can't get a firearm leagally, right? It's not easy, already, the way it is. Even law abiding citizens who have the slightest blemish on their record have rigorous stipulations on whether or not they can recieve a fireamr leagally. However, it IS EASY for a criminal to get one.

 

[AFA]

I put up the wrong link

Deterrent to Crime;
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/11-22-99/vo15no24_deterrent.htm

 

[Kingfisher]

GLK35, Amen brother.
You must live in California. I do.
And it just amazes me, all the crime and drug dealers in some parts of the city, and those guys have plenty of illegally bought arms, but to limit a handgun to 10 rounds is just strange and pointless, when I can drive to the next state and buy high capacity magazines.
For example, the new XD .45 California magazine holds 10 rounds of .45, the non-california magazine holds 14. 4 more shots makes it illegal?
And I agree with you, just because the magazine goes through the grip, makes it illegal, well that would make all handguns in some way illegal.
It's just the governments way of taking babysteps in order to make us all feel more confortable when they take away all the guns. So it doesn't seem like it happened over night.
All I know, is you have about 2 years to buy what you want before someone (Hillary *cough*) gets into office and passes all sorts of new laws.
If they let people carry with a license or like in Lousiana, carry in their car, there would be less crime and carjacking. It would be akin to who has and doesn't have, and the right to defend ones person and substantial property value. Cars can be just as expensive as a condo.

 

[Roughneck]

but to limit a handgun to 10 rounds is just strange and pointless

My personal firearm has always been (and will continue to be) the Colt 1911. I've had so many, many, many people tell me that the "7 rounds just weren't enough". But it has been my personal experience that if you were ever involved in a fire fight where you had to draw a side arm ---- well, if your sidearm needed more than "six bullets" to knock someone down, you're fucked anyways!

That was just a personal anecdote/opinion.
It's not terribly important. I've just become used to my 1911 now. 30+ years is a hard habit to break!

All I know, is you have about 2 years to buy what you want before someone (Hillary *cough*) gets into office and passes all sorts of new laws.

The Executive doesn't pass laws. Congress does. As such, you have as much to worry about now as you do in two years time (assuming Hillary wins).

If assault weapons are banned - why does the police (the State) have them?
If assault weapons are evil, why trust the enforcers of the State with them?
Imagine that! The lawmakers (Congress) and law enforcers (administration) say that "none but our servants shall have these weapons. You common peasants do not qualify".



cheers,