Gun Ban
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
SmallTown
Football season!
Originally posted by Bruce
Let us not forget that the original intent of the second amendment was not only personal self defense, but to give the populace defense from bad oppressive government. Taken in context, the "need" of a given type of firearm certainly changes.
Another thought; why is it always that the "pro-gun" people end up trying to defend their position (as I just did) ? Why don't we just let the "anti's" justify their side in light of the 2nd amendment. Let's hear what we accomplish by all this "ban" stuff. How are we better off and what proof is there that we are ? I offer the current situations in England and Washington DC as examples of bans not working.
"Gun control is hitting what you aim at."
You're combining two different issues. I am a huge advocate of people owning guns, but there are limits. And again I state that the ammendment gave the right to bare arms, not just firearms. But ANY weapon used for defense against a tyranny. So then we should most definately allow average joes to have MANPADS and such because that is a good defense against an enemy in this day and time.
B
Bruce
Guest
Originally posted by Bruce
Another thought; why is it always that the "pro-gun" people end up trying to defend their position (as I just did
I'm still waiting !
Bruce
Because when the leftist gun ninnies scream loud enough - gun owners pay! So we have to defend ourselves.
You know they accomplish nothing, crime doesn't go down, but they get what they want because they are afraid and they prey on ignorant peoples fear.
Because when the leftist gun ninnies scream loud enough - gun owners pay! So we have to defend ourselves.
You know they accomplish nothing, crime doesn't go down, but they get what they want because they are afraid and they prey on ignorant peoples fear.
B
Bruce
Guest
Sharon, I agree. I still wonder how long we will have to wait for the response I asked for ? Maybe it's a little difficult becasue I asked for supportive data and I truly don't believe that any exists.
Talk about bans, look at prisons, anything that even remotely resembles a weapon is outlawed there (as it should be) and prople get killed all the time in prison.
If I am determined to do you harm, you can take away any "weapon" from me that you want (including sticks, spoons, pencils pens ect) and I will still do you harm. The only chance you have is to be able to successfully defend yourself from me, whether that takes fists or a bullet just depends on the parties involved.
Talk about bans, look at prisons, anything that even remotely resembles a weapon is outlawed there (as it should be) and prople get killed all the time in prison.
If I am determined to do you harm, you can take away any "weapon" from me that you want (including sticks, spoons, pencils pens ect) and I will still do you harm. The only chance you have is to be able to successfully defend yourself from me, whether that takes fists or a bullet just depends on the parties involved.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
What else should we not have...
(I wrote this earlier this AM but couldn't post it...So, sorry if Bruz et al already addressed this)
Corvettes? Mansions? $1,000 stainless steel gas grills?
If you teach yourself anything about the "assault weapons" ban you will find one of the more idiotic pieces of dreck ever expectorated out of our fair Washington City.
The facts show violent crime has gone up a smidge since the ban went into effect. How can THIS be? The facts show "assault weapons" were used in some 1-2% of gun related crimes BEFORE the ban and are about the same % now. HOW CAN THIS BE!?
We are talking statistical insignificance. There have been a few hi profile crimes committed with erstwhile banned weapons, which lead to the ban. Hi profile because of the rarity.
Know this: This type of legislation is designed for one purpose: To disarm ALL American citizens. It has NOTHING to do with reducing violent crime.
Now, the "ban".
Know what it says is Verboten? Five things.
1. Pistol type grip
2. Bayonet lug (yep)
3. Grenade Launcher (yep)
4. Folding stock
5. Flash suppressor
A legal firearm may have any one of these, which is the same as saying "pistol grip" because it is THE ubiquitous feature of "assault weapons". As opposed to Dirty Harry’s warm and fuzzy “friendship” weapon .44 magnum. Or Grampy’s Remington 870 pump (shotgun).
Also, hi-cap mags are out but I think that was a separate law.
Wanna know the functional difference between the Beltway Snipers "assault weapon" and a typical hunting rifle?
Detachable magazine.
Wanna know the practical difference?
0.
One shot. One kill.
They coulda done the deed with a Civil War era musket. Or an Olympic Games style .22 pistol. So, if the anti-US Constitution crowds logic is followed, we MUST ban all guns that…shoot bullets.
The vast majority of gun related crimes are committed without a shot even being fired. The ones that result in shots being fired could have been done with Grandma's 6 shot .32 revolver with rounds left over.
Wouldn't legislation actually designed to protect you and I focus on the risks we actually face? Well, shouldn’t it?
As Civil Rights types, you guys might wanna reflect on this a bit more.
As a practical matter, I can live without the grenade launcher, what with grenades already being illegal and all. I gave up bayonet practice a long time ago though it's nice to know you can always "give 'em the cold steel" if some pigeon or rabid squirrel just won't get the message and charges you or a loved one and you're suddenly out of ammo due to the lo-cap mags.
Flash suppressor? Fine. Let the varmints triangulate my position. It could cost me my life, but, hey, what's life without a challenge?
Folding stock? Wouldn't wanna make someone resort to following the law and use much more easily concealable pistols to commit a crime, would we? I may be flexible on this one but I still object to so many assumptions being made as to what the law abiding will or won't do with a damn piece of metal (or plastic). Again, it misses the point.
Now, hi-cap magazines. Ever loaded a 30-40 round magazine for a rifle? 15 rounder for a pistol? PITA ) pain in the...rump
If some CRIMINAL starts hosing down a McDonalds or your local Post Office, the good guys actually have a better chance if he/she/it is using hi-caps. (Shhh! Don't tell Chucky Schummer this, but they tend to jam way more than 10's and 20's...shhh)
Watch Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon I" shooting at the helicoptor with his pistol and you'll get a better idea of why hi-cap mags are such a straw dog. BANG BANG...drop, slap...bang, bang...
If real safety is the goal then only thing that makes sense is a total ban; NO GUNS. Then, we can go back to defending ourselves with rocks and sticks while the criminals...you guessed it, go right on breaking the law and attacking us with whatever they can get their hands on, legal or otherwise.
Bottom line: "They LOOK mean"...
Talk about "racial profiling".
(I wrote this earlier this AM but couldn't post it...So, sorry if Bruz et al already addressed this)
Corvettes? Mansions? $1,000 stainless steel gas grills?
If you teach yourself anything about the "assault weapons" ban you will find one of the more idiotic pieces of dreck ever expectorated out of our fair Washington City.
The facts show violent crime has gone up a smidge since the ban went into effect. How can THIS be? The facts show "assault weapons" were used in some 1-2% of gun related crimes BEFORE the ban and are about the same % now. HOW CAN THIS BE!?
We are talking statistical insignificance. There have been a few hi profile crimes committed with erstwhile banned weapons, which lead to the ban. Hi profile because of the rarity.
Know this: This type of legislation is designed for one purpose: To disarm ALL American citizens. It has NOTHING to do with reducing violent crime.
Now, the "ban".
Know what it says is Verboten? Five things.
1. Pistol type grip
2. Bayonet lug (yep)
3. Grenade Launcher (yep)
4. Folding stock
5. Flash suppressor
A legal firearm may have any one of these, which is the same as saying "pistol grip" because it is THE ubiquitous feature of "assault weapons". As opposed to Dirty Harry’s warm and fuzzy “friendship” weapon .44 magnum. Or Grampy’s Remington 870 pump (shotgun).
Also, hi-cap mags are out but I think that was a separate law.
Wanna know the functional difference between the Beltway Snipers "assault weapon" and a typical hunting rifle?
Detachable magazine.
Wanna know the practical difference?
0.
One shot. One kill.
They coulda done the deed with a Civil War era musket. Or an Olympic Games style .22 pistol. So, if the anti-US Constitution crowds logic is followed, we MUST ban all guns that…shoot bullets.
The vast majority of gun related crimes are committed without a shot even being fired. The ones that result in shots being fired could have been done with Grandma's 6 shot .32 revolver with rounds left over.
Wouldn't legislation actually designed to protect you and I focus on the risks we actually face? Well, shouldn’t it?
As Civil Rights types, you guys might wanna reflect on this a bit more.
As a practical matter, I can live without the grenade launcher, what with grenades already being illegal and all. I gave up bayonet practice a long time ago though it's nice to know you can always "give 'em the cold steel" if some pigeon or rabid squirrel just won't get the message and charges you or a loved one and you're suddenly out of ammo due to the lo-cap mags.
Flash suppressor? Fine. Let the varmints triangulate my position. It could cost me my life, but, hey, what's life without a challenge?
Folding stock? Wouldn't wanna make someone resort to following the law and use much more easily concealable pistols to commit a crime, would we? I may be flexible on this one but I still object to so many assumptions being made as to what the law abiding will or won't do with a damn piece of metal (or plastic). Again, it misses the point.
Now, hi-cap magazines. Ever loaded a 30-40 round magazine for a rifle? 15 rounder for a pistol? PITA ) pain in the...rump
If some CRIMINAL starts hosing down a McDonalds or your local Post Office, the good guys actually have a better chance if he/she/it is using hi-caps. (Shhh! Don't tell Chucky Schummer this, but they tend to jam way more than 10's and 20's...shhh)
Watch Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon I" shooting at the helicoptor with his pistol and you'll get a better idea of why hi-cap mags are such a straw dog. BANG BANG...drop, slap...bang, bang...
If real safety is the goal then only thing that makes sense is a total ban; NO GUNS. Then, we can go back to defending ourselves with rocks and sticks while the criminals...you guessed it, go right on breaking the law and attacking us with whatever they can get their hands on, legal or otherwise.
Bottom line: "They LOOK mean"...
Talk about "racial profiling".
Last edited:
B
Bruce
Guest
Excellent post Larry, you make some strong points. I wonder what the rebuttal will be.
B
Bruce
Guest
C'mon st, lets seriously hear what the advantages to weapons bans are, you seem to be avoiding the issue.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
ST...
...I'll try to be gentle here.
You:
We've lived with this ban for about 7 years. Society has been around for...how long??? 2003 less 1776...227 years.
How would you like it if society banned something you enjoy that has hurt people, but really only banned a part of it that annoyed you and did not address the danger AT ALL??? Again cars. The speed limit is 65. A Yugo will exceed that. So, you want a 'Vette that will go 160? Chuck Schumer bans 6th gear. Hoo e'ffing ray.
...I'll try to be gentle here.
You:
We've lived with this ban for about 7 years. Society has been around for...how long??? 2003 less 1776...227 years.
How would you like it if society banned something you enjoy that has hurt people, but really only banned a part of it that annoyed you and did not address the danger AT ALL??? Again cars. The speed limit is 65. A Yugo will exceed that. So, you want a 'Vette that will go 160? Chuck Schumer bans 6th gear. Hoo e'ffing ray.
Bruce, I've asked this question a thousand times and have never gotten an answer. If you get one, I'm going to cry sex discrimination and heads will roll.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Data...
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/gunlaws.asp
Real assault weapons and explosives have been VERY regulated since 1934
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/gunlaws.asp
Real assault weapons and explosives have been VERY regulated since 1934
B
Bruce
Guest
Lol, I love it vrai, I'll let you know if I do.
As a motorcyclist and a 2nd amendment supporter I get it from both sides. There is always talk about banning fast motorcycles because people go out and exceed the speed limit with them. Heck, I can do that in any vehicle out there today. Did we have less speeding violations back in the 80's when US vehicle speedometers didn't go past 85 MPH ? Give me a break, it ain't about things, it's about people. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore, just blame it on someone (or SOMETHING) else.
I wish these people would simply study history, the answers are there. Would the Holocast have happened if the Jewish people had arms and were willing to use them ? I think not.
T.Rally
New Member
Bear with me, this relates. The idea of outlawing cigarettes during the 1950s would have been laughable. They were engrained in the culture of the time. It was easier to start small and chip away at it like a stone. First it was "no smoking on international flights", than "no smoking on intercontinental flights", "no smoking in government buildings", "no smoking in public areas", and so on and so forth. Today, the whole idea of outlawing smokes is not so laughable, it is becoming reality.
The same thing can be said about cameras. We'll put some cameras up to "catch these folks running red lights." "Lets use these cameras to catch speeders." "Let's put these cameras on street corners to reduce crime." Eventually the thought of cameras invading every aspect of our lives won't be so hard to comprehend. Things that are hard to believe today won't be so hard to believe.
People can talk about common sense gun control all they want, but truthfully the only common sense gun control is no gun control. Can't we see the writing on the wall? These gun control people have one goal in mind and that is the banning of all guns. It won't be tomorrow and it won't be next year but it will come.
The same thing can be said about cameras. We'll put some cameras up to "catch these folks running red lights." "Lets use these cameras to catch speeders." "Let's put these cameras on street corners to reduce crime." Eventually the thought of cameras invading every aspect of our lives won't be so hard to comprehend. Things that are hard to believe today won't be so hard to believe.
People can talk about common sense gun control all they want, but truthfully the only common sense gun control is no gun control. Can't we see the writing on the wall? These gun control people have one goal in mind and that is the banning of all guns. It won't be tomorrow and it won't be next year but it will come.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bruce...
...BTW...thanks!
...BTW...thanks!