Sign In
Register
Help
This topic is locked
It is quite plain that, barring some last-minute pressure, Bush will allow the assault weapons ban to expire in three weeks rather than extend it.
It is well known by proponents of gun control legislation that states where gun laws are lax have a higher gun-related death rate than states where stricter controls are enforced. Anti-gun control lobbyists try to fool legislators and voters alike with misleading crime statistics that show general crime rates, rather than the more specific gun figures.
Obviously, there needs to be a lot of pressure put on Bush to get the anti-assault weapon legislation renewed. And time is of the essence. Anyone have any ideas?
Three More Weeks, Unfortunately Gun Ban Will Be Allowed To Expire
MultiQuote
#2
Sarge 
- Posts: 836
- Joined: 06-August 04
- Location:Detroit, MI
Posted 23 August 2004 - 05:05 PM
it dosent even ban guns, it bans looks.
the Speaker of the house isnt even gonna bring it up for a vote. its gonna die, face it.
the Speaker of the house isnt even gonna bring it up for a vote. its gonna die, face it.
< 0 ( 10 ) 10 > SO SUE ME!
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
#3 Guest_Michael Kwiatkowski_*
Posted 23 August 2004 - 05:46 PM
QUOTE(voteforbush @ Aug 23 2004, 06:05 PM)
it dosent even ban guns, it bans looks.
the Speaker of the house isnt even gonna bring it up for a vote. its gonna die, face it.
the Speaker of the house isnt even gonna bring it up for a vote. its gonna die, face it.
Well, something needs to be done. Whether it was a bad law or not, the fact remains that we need stricter--and more effective--gun control laws. I see no valid reason why a civilian needs an assault rifle. Hunting rifle, okay I can understand that. Hand gun for home defense? Fine by me as long as you're not carrying it around in public. But come on, why does Joe Average need an AK-47? Let's be practical about what guns civilians should have (and by civilians, I mean anyone who isn't military/militia or police/security).
#4
Sarge
- Posts: 836
- Joined: 06-August 04
- Location:Detroit, MI
Posted 23 August 2004 - 05:51 PM
you dont belive in the right to carry? ok...
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
< 0 ( 10 ) 10 > SO SUE ME!
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
#5
Mongol
- Posts: 108
- Joined: 03-July 04
Posted 23 August 2004 - 06:12 PM
I am beating this subject to death on this board recently but I feel strongly about it.
The law is asinine. It does absolutely nothing to stop violent crime. The banned guns are not significantly different from the non-banned guns. See the other threads on the subject for a full description.
Your tolerance of handguns and hunting rifles is puzzling, as handguns are used frequently in crime, while these guns are used rarely. And hunting rifles can instantly become sniper rifles in the hands of a deranged person. They are often more powerful and longer range than most of the banned guns. In fact for many years military sniper rifles were merely civilian sporting rifles pressed into service.
These guns have been in America for decades, actually semi-auto technology is over 100 years old. They are nothing special. These guns are quite ordinary. They are not machine guns, they do not shoot more powerful ammunition, they do not shoot faster. They are basically banned because they look scary. This ban was merely a stepping stone to more prohibitions which is in fact what they are trying to do by passing an expanded ban(can't reacall the bill number at the moment but it's true). Banning guns because they have bayonet mounts and collapsing stocks will not affect violent crime.
There are so many other things we can do to fight crime, we don't have to strip people of their constitutional rights.
Let the ban die.
The law is asinine. It does absolutely nothing to stop violent crime. The banned guns are not significantly different from the non-banned guns. See the other threads on the subject for a full description.
Your tolerance of handguns and hunting rifles is puzzling, as handguns are used frequently in crime, while these guns are used rarely. And hunting rifles can instantly become sniper rifles in the hands of a deranged person. They are often more powerful and longer range than most of the banned guns. In fact for many years military sniper rifles were merely civilian sporting rifles pressed into service.
These guns have been in America for decades, actually semi-auto technology is over 100 years old. They are nothing special. These guns are quite ordinary. They are not machine guns, they do not shoot more powerful ammunition, they do not shoot faster. They are basically banned because they look scary. This ban was merely a stepping stone to more prohibitions which is in fact what they are trying to do by passing an expanded ban(can't reacall the bill number at the moment but it's true). Banning guns because they have bayonet mounts and collapsing stocks will not affect violent crime.
There are so many other things we can do to fight crime, we don't have to strip people of their constitutional rights.
Let the ban die.
#6 Guest_Michael Kwiatkowski_*
Posted 23 August 2004 - 06:26 PM
QUOTE(voteforbush @ Aug 23 2004, 06:51 PM)
you dont belive in the right to carry? ok...
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms (I own a functional replica of a latter 16th century Polish steel mace myself, along with some knives--including an Air Force survival knife), it's just that the stats for concealed carry are incredibly frightening. Here in Ohio everywhere from businesses to schools to churches are putting up signs forbidding weapons from their premises since the concealed carry ban was lifted.
As for your question about why the average joe shouldn't have access to assault rifles, are you joking? You really want your next door neighbor packing an AK-47? Would YOU feel safe with someone close to where you live possessing such a weapon? If so, God help the rest of us who possess an ounce of common sense. Like I said, I've no problem with ordinary people having conventional guns, but military and military-type weapons have only one real purpose and that's to kill other people. Hunting rifles and hand guns can be used for obtaining meat, and for protection from criminals. They are not meant exclusively for killing human beings like assault weapons are.
#7
Mongol
- Posts: 108
- Joined: 03-July 04
Posted 23 August 2004 - 06:34 PM
"Conventional guns" .... these are conventional guns. They are utterly ordinary weapons, not especially powerful, nor are they machine guns. I own an civilian AK-47 clone. Does possession of this kind of gun make me some kind of monster?
A springfield 1903 and an M1 garand are weapons of war, built only for killing people. Yet they are rarely used in crimes and are not covered by the current ban, and you probably wouldn't care one whit if your neighbors owner them. And I'd be just as afraid of a maniac with a scoped "conventional" hunting rifle as a maniac with a wicked looking AK style gun, in some ways more so.
I don't care what kind of gun someone owns, as long as that person is not a criminal or mentally incompotent.
A springfield 1903 and an M1 garand are weapons of war, built only for killing people. Yet they are rarely used in crimes and are not covered by the current ban, and you probably wouldn't care one whit if your neighbors owner them. And I'd be just as afraid of a maniac with a scoped "conventional" hunting rifle as a maniac with a wicked looking AK style gun, in some ways more so.
I don't care what kind of gun someone owns, as long as that person is not a criminal or mentally incompotent.
#8
Sarge
- Posts: 836
- Joined: 06-August 04
- Location:Detroit, MI
Posted 23 August 2004 - 06:37 PM
QUOTE(Michael Kwiatkowski @ Aug 23 2004, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE(voteforbush @ Aug 23 2004, 06:51 PM)
you dont belive in the right to carry? ok...
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms (I own a functional replica of a latter 16th century Polish steel mace myself, along with some knives--including an Air Force survival knife), it's just that the stats for concealed carry are incredibly frightening. Here in Ohio everywhere from businesses to schools to churches are putting up signs forbidding weapons from their premises since the concealed carry ban was lifted.
As for your question about why the average joe shouldn't have access to assault rifles, are you joking? You really want your next door neighbor packing an AK-47? Would YOU feel safe with someone close to where you live possessing such a weapon? If so, God help the rest of us who possess an ounce of common sense. Like I said, I've no problem with ordinary people having conventional guns, but military and military-type weapons have only one real purpose and that's to kill other people. Hunting rifles and hand guns can be used for obtaining meat, and for protection from criminals. They are not meant exclusively for killing human beings like assault weapons are.
a hunting rifle is MUCH more dangerous than an AK-47. more powerful, longer range.
sence there both semi-auto, if i were going to a fight, id want the hunting rifle.
btw, i do own an AK-47.
(and please, give me YOUR defanition of an "assult weapon")
< 0 ( 10 ) 10 > SO SUE ME!
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
#9 Guest_Michael Kwiatkowski_*
Posted 23 August 2004 - 07:21 PM
QUOTE(Mongol @ Aug 23 2004, 07:34 PM)
"Conventional guns" .... these are conventional guns. They are utterly ordinary weapons, not especially powerful, nor are they machine guns. I own an civilian AK-47 clone. Does possession of this kind of gun make me some kind of monster?
A springfield 1903 and an M1 garand are weapons of war, built only for killing people. Yet they are rarely used in crimes and are not covered by the current ban, and you probably wouldn't care one whit if your neighbors owner them. And I'd be just as afraid of a maniac with a scoped "conventional" hunting rifle as a maniac with a wicked looking AK style gun, in some ways more so.
I don't care what kind of gun someone owns, as long as that person is not a criminal or mentally incompotent.
A springfield 1903 and an M1 garand are weapons of war, built only for killing people. Yet they are rarely used in crimes and are not covered by the current ban, and you probably wouldn't care one whit if your neighbors owner them. And I'd be just as afraid of a maniac with a scoped "conventional" hunting rifle as a maniac with a wicked looking AK style gun, in some ways more so.
I don't care what kind of gun someone owns, as long as that person is not a criminal or mentally incompotent.
It doesn't make you a monster if you own an AK-47 clone, it makes you someone I plan on avoiding in person if I can help it. Especially if I see you walking around with it.
I would indeed care if you owned a Springfield 1903 or an M1 Garand. My brother, who is a police dispatcher, owns a rifle with a scope on it and I am always nervous whenever I go over to his place.
And I never said the ban was without flaws. Obviously if they weren't covered under it then there needs to be a ban that does cover such weapons. Again, I have no problem with people keeping hunting rifles or guns that are for home defense. However, there do need to be restrictions so as to protect the public. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but many gun-related murders are carried out using the victim's own firearm. Think about that.
#10 Guest_Michael Kwiatkowski_*
Posted 23 August 2004 - 07:24 PM
QUOTE(voteforbush @ Aug 23 2004, 07:37 PM)
a hunting rifle is MUCH more dangerous than an AK-47. more powerful, longer range.
sence there both semi-auto, if i were going to a fight, id want the hunting rifle.
btw, i do own an AK-47.
(and please, give me YOUR defanition of an "assult weapon")
sence there both semi-auto, if i were going to a fight, id want the hunting rifle.
btw, i do own an AK-47.
(and please, give me YOUR defanition of an "assult weapon")
You want my definition of assault rifle? Check this out:
http://www.infopleas...d/A0326135.html
QUOTE
assault' ri"fle
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
#11
Mongol
- Posts: 108
- Joined: 03-July 04
Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:37 PM
So I'm a dangerous, evil person because I own a gun like that? I am offended.
I hope your respect for the rest of the bill of rights is greater than your respect for the 2nd.
There is nothing enlightened or liberal about destroying constitutional rights in the name of fighting crime. You are no better than John Ashcroft if you do so. You should not complain about the patriot act, illegal detention of immigrants, or any other the other odious measures taken since 9-11 that infringe on our civil liberties. You have absolutely no right to complain about any of these things, after all, we have to compromise our personal freedoms for the good of the community... you know, "for the children" and all that.
By the way here's a springfield 1903, a "weapon of war" made only for killing people:
Of course it's a bolt action, but you can work it quickly with practice as millions of GI's did in WW1, and it was indeed a military weapon made exclusively to take human life.
You want to ban that one then go ahead and say it, but don't tell me that you believe in the right to bear arms at all.
What a stupid, useless, law. Just let it die. Leave people's rights the hell alone and find some other way to fight crime that doesn't trample on people's freedom.
I hope your respect for the rest of the bill of rights is greater than your respect for the 2nd.
There is nothing enlightened or liberal about destroying constitutional rights in the name of fighting crime. You are no better than John Ashcroft if you do so. You should not complain about the patriot act, illegal detention of immigrants, or any other the other odious measures taken since 9-11 that infringe on our civil liberties. You have absolutely no right to complain about any of these things, after all, we have to compromise our personal freedoms for the good of the community... you know, "for the children" and all that.
By the way here's a springfield 1903, a "weapon of war" made only for killing people:
Of course it's a bolt action, but you can work it quickly with practice as millions of GI's did in WW1, and it was indeed a military weapon made exclusively to take human life.
You want to ban that one then go ahead and say it, but don't tell me that you believe in the right to bear arms at all.
What a stupid, useless, law. Just let it die. Leave people's rights the hell alone and find some other way to fight crime that doesn't trample on people's freedom.
#12
DerbyFALs
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 23-August 04
Posted 24 August 2004 - 12:01 AM
QUOTE(Michael Kwiatkowski @ Aug 23 2004, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE(voteforbush @ Aug 23 2004, 06:51 PM)
you dont belive in the right to carry? ok...
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
why souldent a "avrage joe" carry around an "assult weapon" tell me why?
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms (I own a functional replica of a latter 16th century Polish steel mace myself, along with some knives--including an Air Force survival knife), it's just that the stats for concealed carry are incredibly frightening. Here in Ohio everywhere from businesses to schools to churches are putting up signs forbidding weapons from their premises since the concealed carry ban was lifted.
As for your question about why the average joe shouldn't have access to assault rifles, are you joking? You really want your next door neighbor packing an AK-47? Would YOU feel safe with someone close to where you live possessing such a weapon? If so, God help the rest of us who possess an ounce of common sense. Like I said, I've no problem with ordinary people having conventional guns, but military and military-type weapons have only one real purpose and that's to kill other people. Hunting rifles and hand guns can be used for obtaining meat, and for protection from criminals. They are not meant exclusively for killing human beings like assault weapons are.
Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."
I think perhaps you don't trust yourself so how could you trust another?
#14
tyme
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 24-August 04
Posted 24 August 2004 - 09:07 AM
Michael K,
Explain why a semi-automatic version of a military weapon should be banned. What makes it more dangerous than a hunting rifle? The short answer is, "nothing."
What are you nervous of? You think the rifle is going to jump up and start shooting all by itself? It's a hunk of metal and wood and plastic and glass. You know your brother well enough to know that he won't shoot you, right? If not, that's the problem, not the gun.
Hunting rifles usually have scopes. If you're afraid of them, you *do* have a problem with people keeping hunting rifles. Be consistent, one way or the other.
Not really: http://www.guncite.c...ol_gcdgaga.html
www.guncite.com has a variety of other quite useful unformation. Take some time to browse through it.
QUOTE
assault' ri"fle
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
Explain why a semi-automatic version of a military weapon should be banned. What makes it more dangerous than a hunting rifle? The short answer is, "nothing."
QUOTE
I would indeed care if you owned a Springfield 1903 or an M1 Garand. My brother, who is a police dispatcher, owns a rifle with a scope on it and I am always nervous whenever I go over to his place.
What are you nervous of? You think the rifle is going to jump up and start shooting all by itself? It's a hunk of metal and wood and plastic and glass. You know your brother well enough to know that he won't shoot you, right? If not, that's the problem, not the gun.
QUOTE
And I never said the ban was without flaws. Obviously if they weren't covered under it then there needs to be a ban that does cover such weapons. Again, I have no problem with people keeping hunting rifles or guns that are for home defense. However, there do need to be restrictions so as to protect the public.
Hunting rifles usually have scopes. If you're afraid of them, you *do* have a problem with people keeping hunting rifles. Be consistent, one way or the other.
QUOTE
I'm not sure of the exact figures, but many gun-related murders are carried out using the victim's own firearm. Think about that.
Not really: http://www.guncite.c...ol_gcdgaga.html
www.guncite.com has a variety of other quite useful unformation. Take some time to browse through it.
#15
tyme
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 24-August 04
Posted 24 August 2004 - 09:17 AM
QUOTE
As for your question about why the average joe shouldn't have access to assault rifles, are you joking? You really want your next door neighbor packing an AK-47? Would YOU feel safe with someone close to where you live possessing such a weapon? If so, God help the rest of us who possess an ounce of common sense. Like I said, I've no problem with ordinary people having conventional guns, but military and military-type weapons have only one real purpose and that's to kill other people. Hunting rifles and hand guns can be used for obtaining meat, and for protection from criminals. They are not meant exclusively for killing human beings like assault weapons are.
First of all, someone near you probably does own an assault rifle. You'll never know, because virtually no legally owned (as opposed to stolen) assault rifles are ever used in crimes.
I'm not sure why you think that there's something special about "military-type" weapons.
There are three types of rifles:
* rifles that are automatic, aka machine guns
* rifles that are semi-automatic: pulling the trigger shoots another bullet (called "semi-automatic" because they automatically chamber the next round, but do not automatically fire it even if you hold down the trigger)
* rifles that are bolt-action: after pulling the trigger, the shooter must work the bolt before firing again.
All three are in use in the military. All three are in use outside of the military.
That some guns look scary has very little to do with anything except your personal fears. I'll be honest. I think this looks a bit scary:
http://www.knifesite...OD&ProdID=77997
That doesn't mean I'm afraid of someone who has one. It doesn't mean much of anything. My fear of that inanimate object doesn't have any bearing on reality.
#16
ssr
- Posts: 25
- Joined: 24-August 04
Posted 24 August 2004 - 01:07 PM
There IS NO BAN. Even the slang wording of the law is wrong. No firearms were banned or taken off the street. Everything made before the "ban" can still be bought legally today. And functionally identical firearms are being made right now and can also be legally purchased today.
It is an ineffectual law. Those who a screaming about AKs and Uzis and blood in the streets need to learn about what the law actually does and also learn about firearms function. the whole point of the law, and what the antis are exploiting is the emotional reaction and fear of these firearms by those who actually do not understand the law or function of firearms.
Their purpose is also to stigmitize certain groups of firearms and to have the populace accept the "banning" of groups of guns to then allow further broadening of the law. All guns can kill. You think the antis will stop at so-called assault weapons. Next it will be handguns, since those kill even more cops, then semi auto shotguns, since who needs those to hunt with, and then high-powered rifles, since those are in essence sniper rifles. All guns can kill. And banning some groups of guns will not stop the killers, they will just get another. The problem is the killers, not the guns.
It is an ineffectual law. Those who a screaming about AKs and Uzis and blood in the streets need to learn about what the law actually does and also learn about firearms function. the whole point of the law, and what the antis are exploiting is the emotional reaction and fear of these firearms by those who actually do not understand the law or function of firearms.
Their purpose is also to stigmitize certain groups of firearms and to have the populace accept the "banning" of groups of guns to then allow further broadening of the law. All guns can kill. You think the antis will stop at so-called assault weapons. Next it will be handguns, since those kill even more cops, then semi auto shotguns, since who needs those to hunt with, and then high-powered rifles, since those are in essence sniper rifles. All guns can kill. And banning some groups of guns will not stop the killers, they will just get another. The problem is the killers, not the guns.
#17
ssr
- Posts: 25
- Joined: 24-August 04
Posted 24 August 2004 - 01:23 PM
QUOTE(Michael Kwiatkowski @ Aug 23 2004, 05:26 PM)
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms (I own a functional replica of a latter 16th century Polish steel mace myself, along with some knives--including an Air Force survival knife), it's just that the stats for concealed carry are incredibly frightening. Here in Ohio everywhere from businesses to schools to churches are putting up signs forbidding weapons from their premises since the concealed carry ban was lifted.
As for your question about why the average joe shouldn't have access to assault rifles, are you joking? You really want your next door neighbor packing an AK-47? Would YOU feel safe with someone close to where you live possessing such a weapon? If so, God help the rest of us who possess an ounce of common sense. Like I said, I've no problem with ordinary people having conventional guns, but military and military-type weapons have only one real purpose and that's to kill other people. Hunting rifles and hand guns can be used for obtaining meat, and for protection from criminals. They are not meant exclusively for killing human beings like assault weapons are.
As for your question about why the average joe shouldn't have access to assault rifles, are you joking? You really want your next door neighbor packing an AK-47? Would YOU feel safe with someone close to where you live possessing such a weapon? If so, God help the rest of us who possess an ounce of common sense. Like I said, I've no problem with ordinary people having conventional guns, but military and military-type weapons have only one real purpose and that's to kill other people. Hunting rifles and hand guns can be used for obtaining meat, and for protection from criminals. They are not meant exclusively for killing human beings like assault weapons are.
Actually, you do not "believe" in the right to keep and bear arms. If you think you do you are just fooling yourself, just like Kerry is trying to fool everybody.
I am a physician and live in Ohio, just like you. I am a friendly, respectful, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. I have a carry permit, as well as numerous semi-auto rifles, ARs, AKs, M1As, among others. The "liberals" of this country need to check their stereotypes of the gun owners and proponents, which they obviously do not understand. I believe in every person being able to live their life in freedom, freedom from intrusion by the government or other people. I respect others' rights to live and be free and be happy. For a person to try to victimize or harm another is the worst offense one could commit. That also means that I have the right, as a free person in this world, to defend myself and my family with all my ability.
The gun owners of this country are not "nuts" like many liberals try to stereotype them. They hold dear many beliefs, such as freedom, independence, respect for law and country and others. Law-abiding gun owners are not criminals. Criminals are criminals.
#18 Guest_scrueballl_*
Posted 24 August 2004 - 02:14 PM
WHO CARES WHY SOMEBODY 'NEEDS' AN ASSAULT WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!
How many times must I say this? The question is not whether anybody "needs" an assault weapon. The question is freedom.
My freedom to own what I want, no matter if what I own is dangerous and might harm myself or others.
If it harms myself, then the fact is natural selection is working.
If it harms somebody else, then the fact is I should be held accountable, because it's my fault. Not the weapon's. And whether or not people "need" them, or not, or whether they're "dangerous" or not, SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE CONCERNING MY FREEDOM TO OWN WHATEVER I LIKE.
People own lots of dangerous things. Cars, kitchen knives, samurai swords. Many of these things are not "needed". But it's a question of freedom.
People have died to protect my freedom. I shall, as well, if need be, to protect the freedom of those who come after me.
DO NOT LEGISLATE AWAY OUR FREEDOM!!!!!!
How many times must I say this? The question is not whether anybody "needs" an assault weapon. The question is freedom.
My freedom to own what I want, no matter if what I own is dangerous and might harm myself or others.
If it harms myself, then the fact is natural selection is working.
If it harms somebody else, then the fact is I should be held accountable, because it's my fault. Not the weapon's. And whether or not people "need" them, or not, or whether they're "dangerous" or not, SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE CONCERNING MY FREEDOM TO OWN WHATEVER I LIKE.
People own lots of dangerous things. Cars, kitchen knives, samurai swords. Many of these things are not "needed". But it's a question of freedom.
People have died to protect my freedom. I shall, as well, if need be, to protect the freedom of those who come after me.
DO NOT LEGISLATE AWAY OUR FREEDOM!!!!!!
#19
Sarge
- Posts: 836
- Joined: 06-August 04
- Location:Detroit, MI
Posted 24 August 2004 - 02:30 PM
[quote=Michael Kwiatkowski,Aug 23 2004, 06:24 PM]
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.[/QUOTE] [/quote]
relly? thats not what was banned by the AWB.
1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.[/QUOTE] [/quote]
relly? thats not what was banned by the AWB.
< 0 ( 10 ) 10 > SO SUE ME!
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Don't support the Washington Mafia.
Economic Left/Right: 8.20
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
#20 Guest_Michael Kwiatkowski_*
Posted 24 August 2004 - 04:58 PM
QUOTE(Mongol @ Aug 23 2004, 09:37 PM)
So I'm a dangerous, evil person because I own a gun like that? I am offended.
I hope your respect for the rest of the bill of rights is greater than your respect for the 2nd.
There is nothing enlightened or liberal about destroying constitutional rights in the name of fighting crime. You are no better than John Ashcroft if you do so. You should not complain about the patriot act, illegal detention of immigrants, or any other the other odious measures taken since 9-11 that infringe on our civil liberties. You have absolutely no right to complain about any of these things, after all, we have to compromise our personal freedoms for the good of the community... you know, "for the children" and all that.
By the way here's a springfield 1903, a "weapon of war" made only for killing people:
Of course it's a bolt action, but you can work it quickly with practice as millions of GI's did in WW1, and it was indeed a military weapon made exclusively to take human life.
You want to ban that one then go ahead and say it, but don't tell me that you believe in the right to bear arms at all.
What a stupid, useless, law. Just let it die. Leave people's rights the hell alone and find some other way to fight crime that doesn't trample on people's freedom.
I hope your respect for the rest of the bill of rights is greater than your respect for the 2nd.
There is nothing enlightened or liberal about destroying constitutional rights in the name of fighting crime. You are no better than John Ashcroft if you do so. You should not complain about the patriot act, illegal detention of immigrants, or any other the other odious measures taken since 9-11 that infringe on our civil liberties. You have absolutely no right to complain about any of these things, after all, we have to compromise our personal freedoms for the good of the community... you know, "for the children" and all that.
By the way here's a springfield 1903, a "weapon of war" made only for killing people:
Of course it's a bolt action, but you can work it quickly with practice as millions of GI's did in WW1, and it was indeed a military weapon made exclusively to take human life.
You want to ban that one then go ahead and say it, but don't tell me that you believe in the right to bear arms at all.
What a stupid, useless, law. Just let it die. Leave people's rights the hell alone and find some other way to fight crime that doesn't trample on people's freedom.
I never said you were evil. Try to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Nor am I suggesting that people not be allowed to possess ANY firearms, it's just the most lethal types that are typically reserved for use by our military and police/security personnel that should stay out of the hands of ordinary citizens.
And please try to refrain also from questioning my respect for the Bill of Rights. I am in no way suggesting that firearms be kept from the law-abiding general populace. That right is guaranteed under the Constitution and I have no intention of opposing it. Nevertheless, there are certain weapons that it is agreed should be kept from the hands of citizens. Example: since the 2nd Ammendment is non-specific in the definition of arms, it is feasible that one could try to own a nuclear warhead-tipped missile, citing the 2nd Ammendment in proclaiming his right to it. Yet no one can credibly argue that such a weapon in the hands of a mere civilian is at all desirable. Nuke as an example going too far? Okay, how about a bazooka? Or a rocket launcher? What isn't an acceptable weapon to own and/or carry, to you?
Ashcroft has made it the FBI's policy to wipe all gun purchase records after 24 hours. This means that it is quite easy for someone with a criminal record and a forged background to make it past the check (which, let's be realistic, isn't always carried out--just ask the folks who sold the guns to the Columbine High School killers), to buy a gun and then use it on you. Thanks to Asscroft, there is no way of tracking that gun or its owner after 24 hours.
I have every right to complain about laws that erode our civil liberties and that compromise our security. Do not presume to tell me what I can or cannot complain about.
#22 Guest_Michael Kwiatkowski_*
Posted 24 August 2004 - 05:11 PM
QUOTE(ssr @ Aug 24 2004, 02:23 PM)
Actually, you do not "believe" in the right to keep and bear arms. If you think you do you are just fooling yourself, just like Kerry is trying to fool everybody.
I am a physician and live in Ohio, just like you. I am a friendly, respectful, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. I have a carry permit, as well as numerous semi-auto rifles, ARs, AKs, M1As, and many shotguns, rifles, and more handguns than I can count. The "liberals" of this country need to check their stereotypes of the gun owners and proponents, which they obviously do not understand. I believe in every person being able to live their life in freedom, freedom from intrusion by the government or other people. I respect others' rights to live and be free and be happy. For a person to try to victimize or harm another is the worst offense one could commit. That also means that I have the right, as a free person in this world, to defend myself and my family with all my ability.
The gun owners of this country are not "nuts" like many liberals try to stereotype them. They hold dear many beliefs, such as freedom, independence, respect for law and country and others. Law-abiding gun owners are not criminals. Criminals are criminals.
I am a physician and live in Ohio, just like you. I am a friendly, respectful, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. I have a carry permit, as well as numerous semi-auto rifles, ARs, AKs, M1As, and many shotguns, rifles, and more handguns than I can count. The "liberals" of this country need to check their stereotypes of the gun owners and proponents, which they obviously do not understand. I believe in every person being able to live their life in freedom, freedom from intrusion by the government or other people. I respect others' rights to live and be free and be happy. For a person to try to victimize or harm another is the worst offense one could commit. That also means that I have the right, as a free person in this world, to defend myself and my family with all my ability.
The gun owners of this country are not "nuts" like many liberals try to stereotype them. They hold dear many beliefs, such as freedom, independence, respect for law and country and others. Law-abiding gun owners are not criminals. Criminals are criminals.
Well doc, do not come into my place of business carrying any guns. You may have the right to carry a gun around now with impunity, but my place of business is also free to ban you from entering with a weapon. So is my church, so is the school where the kids in my neighborhood go, so is the Convenient Food Mart on the corner of my street. If you don't like that, tough. Leave your gun at home where it belongs.
Furthermore, as I cautioned someone else just a few minutes ago do not presume to tell me what I believe in. Have I ever said that I favor banning ALL weapons from the public? No. I challenge you to prove otherwise. If you can't do that, then with all due respect please keep your mouth shut until you've come up with something intelligent to say about the matter.
This issue isn't about freedom, it's about you wanting absolutely no limits on what kinds of firearms you can own and carry about in public. You don't seem to understand that 1) the 2nd Ammendment was created before we had a large, well organized military to defend our nation from attack and so it was considered necessary for regular citizens to have usable arms for combat--because they could be and often were called up to defend the states in times of war, and they needed weapons to fight with because at the time the federal government couldn't provide them. 2) That we now live in an age where we have a large, well organized and certainly well equipped military to defend our nation. The bottom line is that today you--Dr. Joe Average--have no business owning an assault rifle or other usable, military-type gun. There are plenty of varieties for hunting and home defense that you can choose from, and yes if required I would gladly fight and/or die to preserve your right to them.
You want to have an assault rifle, then go join the military. They issue one to you. If the military's not your cup of tea, consider a career in security or law enforcement. There are militia groups that have areas safely away from urban areas where you can have and use military guns. Try one of those. Just keep yourself and your guns the hell away from me.
#23 Guest_Michael Kwiatkowski_*
Posted 24 August 2004 - 05:21 PM
QUOTE(DerbyFALs @ Aug 24 2004, 01:01 AM)
Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."
I think perhaps you don't trust yourself so how could you trust another?
I think perhaps you don't trust yourself so how could you trust another?
Do you see me advocating gas chambers or electric chairs for ordinary citizens? Clearly not as those are devices reserved for the proper authorities. Please keep your responses reasonable, and not make such over-the-top and foolish statements.
A military or military-type rifle is designed to kill the enemy. And why would you need such a weapon for home defense? We have our military, we have police officers, we have private security all for the purpose of protecting us from criminals. And to back that up we retain the right to keep and bear arms. I really wish pro-assault weapon advocates would quit making assumnptions about my interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, and that you pay attention when I say that I DO NOT OPPOSE IT. In this day and age it is simply unnecessary for certain types of guns to be owned and used by civilians. I live in Ohio. Here it is now legal to carry concealed weapons. I happen to be a sword enthusiast. Would you say it is okay for me to carry a sword under my coat when I go out? Wouldn't you think me strange for doing so? Wouldn't you feel less than safe around me? This isn't Medieval England, nor is it the Old West.
You've certainly every right to keep weapons for hunting and/or home defense. However, there are certain accepted limits as to what kinds of weapons we allow to be carried around by ordinary citizens. Try to think about what you're going to say in replying to me from now on, so that you don't make such foolish remarks.
