Iraqi voter turnout

[Bruzilla]

IMHO it sounds to me like he's saying.. ALTHOUGH I am pro-gun, 'm being hired to enforce the law, now matter what my personal likes, dislikes or opinions are, I WILL enforce the laws passed by congress..

That's exactly what it sounds like, but it seems to be getting spun by some newspapers to sound like he's a gun grabber... could it be that they are trying to use gun owners against themselves?

 

[2ndAmendment]

...but is there any argument you'd find acceptable in terms of limits on the 2A?

(I figured you would bring up private ships and cannons. One civil war general bought his brigade several gatlin guns.)

The argument is that as much damage as can be done with a semi auto rifle or handgun, it is exponentially horrific what can be done with explosives, (Oklahoma City) a tank and say a modern attack helicopter.

There is only so much that can be done with small arms. It is one thing if a heretofore law abiding young man climbs a tower and commits mass murder. He can be stopped by a typical cop on the beat. The damage is, however horrible, tolerable, digestable.

What if had a tank? What if it was stolen? There is just so massively much more damage that can be done, it's just too much for an individual to be responsible for.

Tanks can be stolen now. They have been. Remember the one that ran a muck in Kalifornia? Again, the crux of the matter is law abiding. Limits assume guilt instead of innocence. I know I am being hard over on this, but when you get to the real reason for the founders embodying the Second Amendment and realize that it was to be able to control the central government, then you understand that they wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves, by force if necessary, against the troops of the central government.

 

[itsbob]

Tanks can be stolen now. They have been. Remember the one that ran a muck in Kalifornia? Again, the crux of the matter is law abiding. Limits assume guilt instead of innocence. I know I am being hard over on this, but when you get to the real reason for the founders embodying the Second Amendment and realize that it was to be able to control the central government, then you understand that they wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves, by force if necessary, against the troops of the central government.

ANy tank or military vehicle can be stolen.. IF you know how to start it, and drive it.. The only thing between you and a 3 million dollar M1 is a $5 padlock (but you have to know how to turn on the fuel pumps, and switch on the power too).. there is no ignition key, just a button push.. M3 you just have to push the gear selector towards the wall, and you can joy ride for a LONG time..

 

[2ndAmendment]

ANy tank or military vehicle can be stolen.. IF you know how to start it, and drive it.. The only thing between you and a 3 million dollar M1 is a $5 padlock (but you have to know how to turn on the fuel pumps, and switch on the power too).. there is no ignition key, just a button push.. M3 you just have to push the gear selector towards the wall, and you can joy ride for a LONG time..

Most of the manuals are available on line for the U.S. military equipment. Heck, not too many years back a guy almost grabbed an F-14. The only reason he was caught was he filed a flight plan that called for a crusing altitude of 10000 feet which is way too low.

 

[Bruzilla]

...Our Founders did not imagine an individual having that kind of power in his hands.

Larry, I agree with you, but, I cringe every time I hear the statement "Our Founders did not imagine..." Our Founding Fathers could not have imagined network TV, the Internet, or Hustler magazine, yet all of these end of protected by the Constitution, however gray their protection may be. Our Founding Fathers could not have invisioned DNA testing, which pretty much negates the fifth ammendment for many cases, yet taking the 5th is still protected. It seems like the only time the " Our Founders did not imagine..." argument is ever practically applied is in regards to gun control.

In 1776, the Founding Fathers wanted us to be as well armed as the Army in order to ensure that no future leader could use the Army against us. That's why the didn't write "keep and bear rifles and pistols." As a practical matter, Americans could afford the same guns as the Army in 1776, but cannons were no more affordable to average Americans in 1776 as an M-1 tank is to us today. You can't really make the argument that the FFs could not imagine the devastation of an M-1 tank when you consider that a 12-pound cannon could do a ton of damage on its own. Now nuclear weapons... that's a different story.

 

[Bruzilla]

You guys are as hard over on any Republican as the DU is on any Democrat.

I'm not hard over on any Democrat or Republican. I like to know the facts about a situation because too many times, the information that is extrapolated in situations like this gets tainted based on whatever agenda(s) the provider might have. If I hear that Chuck Schumer is out to ban guns, I take that at face value as I know what the deal is with him. When I hear that a nominee of President Bush is wanting to ban guns, I smell something a bit stinky, especially when there's been no mention of these desires before, and I want to dig a little deeper.

In this case, here's what gunowners.org provided:

"'The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress,' Gonzales said. 'I, of course, support the president on this issue.'

"... He spoke of his brother, who is a Houston SWAT officer, and said, 'I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street.' Hence, he supports a prohibition on semi-automatics that, in truth, only amounts to a ban on ugly guns."

This notification by gunowners.org was apparently based on an AP story run by the Washington Times and CNN (and probably other sources), headlined "Gonzales supports weapons ban", which said:

"'I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street,' he said. 'The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue.'"

So... trying to state that the Washington Times running this story makes it valid is false. All of the reports of Gonzales "supporting" a weapons ban stem from one, non-by-lined, AP story. Who wrote it?

Now, here's what was really said - verbatim -

4. Will you commit to enforcing all of the nation’s federal gun laws if confirmed as Attorney General?

Response: Yes. President Bush developed Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) to target firearms-related criminal conduct. Since PSN’s inception, Federal firearms prosecutions have increade 76 percent. During that period, violent crime fell to 30-year lows, and crimes committed by offenders armed with a firearm also fell to record low levels. I can assure you and the Committee that I am committed to continuing, if confirmed, the Administration’s aggressive efforts to combat violent crime through all means and resources that Congress makes available to the Department.

5. Do you believe reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban would help prvent crime and terrorism in America?

Response: At my hearing I introduced my brother, Tony, who is a SWAT officer and a 26-year veteran of the Houston Police Department. I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the streets. The President has made clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the President on this issue. Having said that, I believe the most effective means of continuing to reduce violent crime and crime committed with a firearm is through aggressive law enforcement and prosecution. This Administration has increased federal firearms prosecutions by 76 percent and has supported an increase in State and local resources devoted to prosecuting firearms-related crime. I am committed to ensuring the continued vigorous enforcement of federal firearms laws so that law-abiding Americans can benefit from a continuation in the reduction of violent crime experienced during President Bush’s first term.

I read that and I see someone saying the following:

1. I worry about my brother the cop.
2. I will enforce any laws that Congress passes.
3. We should be more concerned with prosecuting criminals than confiscating guns.

He says two sentences, really 1.5, about enforcing the AWB if Congress sends it to Bush (which he knows damn well they won't), and seven about how better enforcement of the law, and apprehension and incarceration of criminals is, in his words, "the most effective means of continuing to reduce violent crime and crime committed with a firearm..."

Now, maybe you can read "I want a gun ban!" into those remarks, but I sure can't. Now, given that I have a conspiratal mind, it wouldn't strike me as much of a stretch that some Liberal AP journalist spun this story the way he/she did to cast doubt on Gonzales by gun owners. The Democrats have made no effort to hide the fact that they absolutely do not want this guy confirmed, and maybe the're looking for some accomplices who are easy to "spin up".

 

[2ndAmendment]

That is why we live here. You can believe as you do and I can as I do. Anyone, who in the least, including President Bush, that stands in favor of the AWB or any other like the 50 BMG ban in Kalifornia are persona non grata in my book. I voted for Bush only as a vote against Kerry. I see that this goes nowhere between us.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK Bruz...

...as I am an accomadating sort of fellow...

"Our Founders did not imagine..."

How about: 'If a few founding fathers were around today...'

...then they, I think, they would consider that in their day a man could kill another man from maybe 100 yards away and face the same risk. That is a far cry, as a practical matter, as a moral matter, as a matter of public safety, from being able to push a button and blow a mans house apart 5,000 yards away, without even seeing it happen.

Gotta run!

 

[likitysplit]

Common misconception. A shotgun still has to be aimed especially in close quarters if it has a standard length barrel. Even number 9 shot at 10 feet is only going to spread about 2 - 6 inches and number 9 will only penetrate far enough into a human body at that range to piss a guy off.

They do make different rounds for a shotgun including flachettes, rubber ball, tear gas, and the like.

2A, would you like to get together to simulate this. Let me hit you with one of my AA reloads using 1 1/4 oz shot with max dram.#9. From ten feet your azz would be a water sprinkler. This is from a 28in. barrel. (modified)

I do have a 24in barrel on my A390 that I use for waterfowl and turkey. And believe me, I'd take this over a MP5 all day in CQ sits. 3 1/2 in chambered with Remington 2x4 shot, full choke, at 40 yards about 85% of the shot is within a 3 foot cirlcle. I've blown a turkeys head almost completely off at 30 yards. This would allow me to extend the mag to hold 10 rounds. Have you seen a shotgun wound before?

I've seen guys that were hit with a .9mm or .40 in the arm or leg and keep on tappin the trigger. Not the case with a crackhead that just took 117 pellets in the abdomen/neck/nuts/face at 20 feet, he's choking on his own blood.

#9 shot, 10 feet, piss a guy off................try again..........

Thanks for listening...........

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A, would you like to get together to simulate this. Let me hit you with one of my AA reloads using 1 1/4 oz shot with max dram.#9. From ten feet your azz would be a water sprinkler. This is from a 28in. barrel. (modified)

I do have a 24in barrel on my A390 that I use for waterfowl and turkey. And believe me, I'd take this over a MP5 all day in CQ sits. 3 1/2 in chambered with Remington 2x4 shot, full choke, at 40 yards about 85% of the shot is within a 3 foot cirlcle. I've blown a turkeys head almost completely off at 30 yards. This would allow me to extend the mag to hold 10 rounds. Have you seen a shotgun wound before?

I've seen guys that were hit with a .9mm or .40 in the arm or leg and keep on tappin the trigger. Not the case with a crackhead that just took 117 pellets in the abdomen/neck/nuts/face at 20 feet, he's choking on his own blood.

#9 shot, 10 feet, piss a guy off................try again..........

Thanks for listening...........

[kidding]I'll let you shoot me with #9 if I can have a thick leather coat if you'll let me shoot you with my 50 BMG, ~12500 lbs of muzzle energy (no, that is not an misplaced decimal point 12000 - 13000 lbs). You can have a thick leather coat too. Now all we have to determine is who goes first.[/kidding]

Actually you made my point for me; see bold in your post. "#9 shot, 10 feet, piss a guy off" may be a bit of a stretch and I apologize for exaggeration, but the odds of survival are far higher than a heaver projectile at higher speed or even a heavier projectile at the same speed. More energy = better penetration. I have no aversion to a shotgun. I have several nice ones. What I was trying to convey is that it is not the close quarter king that a lot of people make it out to be. I used #9 shot as an illustration since that is about the smallest you can readily find without going to snake shot and the spread on lighter shot is faster than heavier shot. There is a common misconception that you only have to point in the general direction with a shotgun and pull the trigger. I was trying to convey that the spread would not make up for lack of aim especially in very close quarters since the pattern would still be quite tight.

Do I want a 9mm? Heck no. I use a .44 Rem Magnum, but a .40 S&W is a good round for a woman. No offense intended ladies, but most ladies I know including my wife are not appreciative of heavy recoil although my wife does like to shoot the 50 occasionally.

Anyway, glad you have and like your shotgun. I like mine too for bird, squirrel, and rabbit. I like other things for other purposes.

 

[Railroad]

Big time , guys! (that's not complaining, just an observation)

I like my son's camouflage BB gun with the scope on it!

 

[Bruzilla]

...as I am an accomadating sort of fellow...

How about: 'If a few founding fathers were around today...'

...then they, I think, they would consider that in their day a man could kill another man from maybe 100 yards away and face the same risk. That is a far cry, as a practical matter, as a moral matter, as a matter of public safety, from being able to push a button and blow a mans house apart 5,000 yards away, without even seeing it happen.

So... at what point do you think a few Founding Fathers would have thrown in the towel on the 2nd Ammendment? Following the development of barrel rifling? the telescopic site? How about after the development of the cartridge and/or repeating arms? Surely after the development of the Gatling gun and certainly after the development of heavy water-cooled machine guns in WWI! Do you think there's a chance that 200 years from now, people will be looking back longfully for the days of the AKM and Barrett sniper rifles when directed thought weapons are being used from the other side of the globe? Will they be saying "well of course they didn't ban guns then. You had to see your target before firing for God's sake! It isn't like today when you only have to think of your target to kill it!"

If you select an acceptable point, by modern standards, of when they would have scrapped the 2nd Ammendment, how about points for other ammendments? Would the anonymity or radio caused them to inhibit free speech because they couldn't see the speaker? Would TV have been banned after the network news broadcasts lost the Viet Nam War at home?

Issues such as weapons effectiveness are local to the times that they are developed and used. No, the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned our modern weapons anymore than we can envision future weapons. What can be said for certain is that the weapons in place at the time of the Founding Fathers were a hundred times more effective at killing than weapons from the 1500s, so I doubt one can make a valid claim that the FFs had little anticipation that weapons would evolve greatly in the future. The FFs also knew very well that the weapons that were in the hands of men at that time were the most lethal ever devised, but that concern was apparently a distant second to ensuring that Americans would be able to fight back against their government if need to.

I think the real difference was not weapons technology, but the status of our government. The FFs didn't really have any idea how their experiment with Democracy was going to turn out, so they were in the "hope for the best, plan for the worst" mode. They were more interested in defending the nation from internal enemies than worrying about who had an assault musket hanging over the fireplace.

 

[Larry Gude]

Stop right there...

If you select an acceptable point, by modern standards, of when they would have scrapped the 2nd Ammendment, how about points for other ammendments?

To claim, as I have, that Thomas Jefferson would see Constitutional reason to limit present day private ownership of a fully functioning, fully armed M1A1 or an F-14 is NOT to say that he would agree with a piece of legislation that limited you to two of the following 'boogeymen': Pistol grip, hi cap magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, grenade launcher on a given small arm.

You already pointed out that, taken literally, the 2A says I can keep and bear tactical nukes. Or ICBM's with 20 mirv's.

 

[likitysplit]

ban the bullshit

To claim, as I have, that Thomas Jefferson would see Constitutional reason to limit present day private ownership of a fully functioning, fully armed M1A1 or an F-14 is NOT to say that he would agree with a piece of legislation that limited you to two of the following 'boogeymen': Pistol grip, hi cap magazine, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, grenade launcher on a given small arm.

You already pointed out that, taken literally, the 2A says I can keep and bear tactical nukes. Or ICBM's with 20 mirv's.

Gent's,

Do we really need an AK-47 to go duck hunting or a .50 cal rifle to take a deer. Hell, a .17 cal. is enough to defend yourself. The FF's intended us to 'Defend' ourselves, not launch an offensive on Pennsylvania Ave. Seriously, I am a pro-gun person, and you can call me hypocrite, but I think the assault weapons (or those that look like they belong in the hands of a commando) should be BANNED for public use/purchase.

Do you think the crackheads in PG county would look as cool packin' a single action Ruger? No, that's why they all run around with Tech-9's and wannabe Uzi's. It looks cool. (to them anyways, and the kids watching TV)

I'm all for the 2A but Goddamn, give me a break!! Unless your just a ####ing Gun nut and mercinary, THERE IS NO NEED TO POSSESS A .50 CALIBER RIFLE OR ANY Full Auto or Assault clone unless your have special permits for reinactments or YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT. BAN THE BULLSHIT.

BTW,

I own the following (hence none are assault) Model/Caliber/target capabilities.

Remington 700 ADL 30-06 (bolt action) (Large game/humans)
Remington 1100 LT-20 20 gauge (semi-auto) (birds/humans)
Remington 870 12 gauge (pump) (Birds/humans)
Winchester 94 AE 30-30 (lever) (medium game/humans)
Beretta 96 FS .40cal (semi-auto) (small game/humans)
Assorted .22 cal (single shot and semi-auto) rifles/pistols
Ruger Super Blackhawk .41 cal (large game/humans)

NOTE THAT I CAN DEFEND MYSELF WITH ANY OF THESE FIREARMS. "Defend' being the key word.

You must admit, the dumbass' like the ones at Columbine give US, the gunowners, a bad name.

Seriously, why do you need a .50 cal or a para-military style weapon? And don't say, "because I can and it's my right" Really, give a seriously legitimate reason. I'm honestly curious..........

Because believe it or not...........without compromise from people that have watched 'Rambo' too many times, we will ALL have the title of 'Gun Nutz'....

 

[2ndAmendment]

Gent's,

Do we really need an AK-47 to go duck hunting or a .50 cal rifle to take a deer. Hell, a .17 cal. is enough to defend yourself. The FF's intended us to 'Defend' ourselves, not launch an offensive on Pennsylvania Ave. Seriously, I am a pro-gun person, and you can call me hypocrite, but I think the assault weapons (or those that look like they belong in the hands of a commando) should be BANNED for public use/purchase.

Do you think the crackheads in PG county would look as cool packin' a single action Ruger? No, that's why they all run around with Tech-9's and wannabe Uzi's. It looks cool. (to them anyways, and the kids watching TV)

I'm all for the 2A but Goddamn, give me a break!! Unless your just a ####ing Gun nut and mercinary, THERE IS NO NEED TO POSSESS A .50 CALIBER RIFLE OR ANY Full Auto or Assault clone unless your have special permits for reinactments or YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT. BAN THE BULLSHIT.

BTW,

I own the following (hence none are assault) Model/Caliber/target capabilities.

Remington 700 ADL 30-06 (bolt action) (Large game/humans)
Remington 1100 LT-20 20 gauge (semi-auto) (birds/humans)
Remington 870 12 gauge (pump) (Birds/humans)
Winchester 94 AE 30-30 (lever) (medium game/humans)
Beretta 96 FS .40cal (semi-auto) (small game/humans)
Assorted .22 cal (single shot and semi-auto) rifles/pistols
Ruger Super Blackhawk .41 cal (large game/humans)

NOTE THAT I CAN DEFEND MYSELF WITH ANY OF THESE FIREARMS. "Defend' being the key word.

You must admit, the dumbass' like the ones at Columbine give US, the gunowners, a bad name.

Seriously, why do you need a .50 cal or a para-military style weapon? And don't say, "because I can and it's my right" Really, give a seriously legitimate reason. I'm honestly curious..........

Because believe it or not...........without compromise from people that have watched 'Rambo' too many times, we will ALL have the title of 'Gun Nutz'....

You don't understand the reason for the Second Amendment at all. The Founders wanted us to be able to "launch an offensive on Pennsylvania Ave". Read the history; you'll find I am telling the truth. It is not about hunting at all. It is about defending oneself against others and the government. Read what Jefferson had to say about it. He thought that eventually, the people would have to rise up against the very government the Founders were forming.

The kids at Columbine violated numerous laws. More laws or banning guns will not prevent crime.

"I own the following (hence none are assault)"; what because you own these they are not considered assault weapons? Ha! For your information, the list of guns that could be banned include your Remington 1100 LT-20 and your Beretta 96 FS since they are semi-auto and larger bore than .22 cal.

As to the .50 BMG, it is one of the most fun guns I have every shot, and it has been used to take elk at 780 yards. Do that with something less.

 

[Larry Gude]

likity...

2A is correct, the intention was to be able to defend ones self and property, to be able to revolt, to overthrow the government, to not be a subject.

Now, in this day and age I don't fancy my odds against city hall and their SWAT team. But the idea stands: if I've so reached my wits end with a House and Senate full of Ted Kennedys and Annapolis overflowing with nothing but Mike Miller and what's his face Busch and all courts full of John Paul Stephens, then yes, it was intended that I be able to keep and bear arms.

Now, as it stands, our society is nowhere bad enough for me to want to gather the Minutemen, but that is not the point. The Constitutional ability to do so is the point, that government lives on notice, as it were. We have mostly lost that.

'Assault' weapons. It sound like you are objecting to appearance and that, frankly, is silly. The beltway snipers would have been way better served with your Rem 700 and move farther from the target than the 'assault' AR they used.

You are more dangerous with your Super Blackhawk than I am with my .45 milspec. You are NOT going to jam. My semi auto might.

I'll ask you a question: If it is valid for you to object to the appearance of my weapons, is it therefore valid for me to object to the quantity of yours?

Why, one may ask, do you need so many?

Planning a revolution my friend? Don't forget me and Mr. AT&T, 2A (dialing long distance) !!!

 

[ylexot]

Seriously, I am a pro-gun person, and you can call me hypocrite, but I think the assault weapons (or those that look like they belong in the hands of a commando) should be BANNED for public use/purchase.

How does what a gun "looks like" have anything to do with the capabilities of a gun? If you put a flash suppressor, folding stock, and a bayonet lug on your Winchester 94 AE 30-30 (just an example), would it shoot bullets differently? That's the essence of the AWB...the guns "look scary".

 

[likitysplit]

As to the .50 BMG, it is one of the most fun guns I have every shot, and it has been used to take elk at 780 yards. Do that with something less.

Actually, I have. I've taken 2 Elk with my Matthews Feathermax (65 lb)(100 grn Muzzy)(Goldtip arrows) in New Mexico in '02 and '04 (thanksgiving). I prefer HUNTING as opposed to SNIPING from a 1/2 mile away. I like 30 yard shots. I can hear them chewing their food, count their eyelashes.

Do these long shots make you feel more like a man? And I'm sure safety is never a concern either with such a big bore. My God man, that cartridge is made to dump an engine block at that range, not take a damn North American game animal.

You're the very type of person that all the left wingers are targeting........Don't you get it?

Would you or have you ever considered yourself a gun nut? Can I borrow a copy of Rambo?

 

[likitysplit]

I'll ask you a question: If it is valid for you to object to the appearance of my weapons, is it therefore valid for me to object to the quantity of yours?

Why, one may ask, do you need so many?

Planning a revolution my friend? Don't forget me and Mr. AT&T, 2A (dialing long distance) !!!

My point exactly. If I wanted to plan a revolution I could with these firearms.

And all the weapons I own, excluding the 96 FS, are used for hunting either fowl or large game. .22 for squirrels, 20 gauge for quail, 30-06 for deer/bear, and the .41 (scoped) for deer, the 870 for ducks.

You don't get it, the libbies are not against hunting, they just don't think its rational to hunt deer with a .50 and shoot ducks with a Goddamn Uzi.......

 

[likitysplit]

How does what a gun "looks like" have anything to do with the capabilities of a gun? If you put a flash suppressor, folding stock, and a bayonet lug on your Winchester 94 AE 30-30 (just an example), would it shoot bullets differently? That's the essence of the AWB...the guns "look scary".

I think the keyword here is ASSAULT. Why do we need to assault anything today. The Win 94 AE is a single shot, lever action. Far from being on the AWB list.

Remember fellas it's been 200 years............get with the program.