The Assault Weapons Ban by AnthonyT

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Answer: The Assault Weapons Ban did not ban assault weapons. Rather, it banned weapons which have a physical resemblence to assault weapons (they looked scary) and created a situation where fun, sporty rifles became inaccessable. Literally, certain grip options were deemed 'bad.'

Hell, Anthony, it didn't even ban those weapons - just the IMPORTED ones. It wasn't about safety, ever; it was about the APPEARANCE of safety, but it was also about protectionism for American gun makers.

And I never understood why it was that having a pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun made me automatically more likely to kill somebody with it.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:36 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Question: What have you got against banning Assault Weapons?

Nothing. As long as Assault Weapons are actually banned. There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Question: Why do you oppose the child-safing of firearms?

I don't. Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.

But, I'll also point out that it isn't just the laws that are behind a reduction in violent crime involving guns or similar. It's also the general mentality behind such legislation in society. It works in civilised nations because people are generally peaceful and those that aren't have more limited options to do harm. But, in a different society, when things go wrong they'll go wrong really really badly.

If a country is going to create new laws such as these, it would be naive to think that it'll have immediate effect. As in, those types of firearms are already out there in good supply. It's the long term affects that need to be considered when considering such legislation.

Not to mention that there is a chicken and the egg problem. Do the laws come first, or the mentality? Maybe both little by little?

But, to be clear, these laws need to do what they are intended to do. Otherwise, you're just shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended

).

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:50 AM

Quote:
93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons.

93% of them did not NEED to.

The perps, expecting a disarmed and compliant victim set out on a plate for them by policies intended to make them easier for the Gov to victimise (and work just fine for other crooks too) - ran into someone NOT disarmed, NOT compliant, and found somewhere else to be in a hurry, oh what a horrible tragedy, no crime occured to blame on guns, no excuse to jack taxes and put more blue suited gangbangers with badges at the public trough....

Criminals in todays era EXPECT unarmed victims, and meek compliance, fact is when most of them run up across ANY FORM OF RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER, they've no clue what to do, and usually the resister wins out even if unarmed.

Making folks disarmed and compliant isn't the answer, just look at Miranda if you wanna see where that shit goes.

Making it life-threatening to be a predatory scumbag ?
That is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:57 AM

Quote:
I don't. Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.

Ok, then can I put them on all your fire extinguishers and then put the keys out in the glovebox of your car ?

Should make you so much safer from an accidental discharge of your fire extinguisher, which happens oh so often now, right ?

And shouldn't make any difference at all when that grease fire breaks out in your kitchen, right ?

Common sense, any child too young to comprehend, should not be able to access the weapon, pure negligence that would be, and any child old enough to comprehend should know better than to mess with it.

A gun with a gunlock on it ?

Jeeper creepers, just buy a fucking CLUB then, cause that's all it is, by the time you get the damn thing unlocked and ready, you're dead, and you know what ?

If you're THAT fucking stupid, maybe you need to be.

-Frem

PS. No, Anthony, that wasn't nice of me, regardless, I will never ever again be nice on this topic, under no circumstances what so ever.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 3:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one (an assault weapon).

Actually, just hearing you say that makes me need/want one.

I'm always cautious of people who decide, "Well, I certainly don't need or want to (insert action of your choice here), so of course no one else should, so we can ban it with a clear conscience." Even changing it to "Well, most people certainly don't need or want to..." doesn't make me any more comfortable.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 3:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Gun locks save children's lives. Making them mandatory makes sense.

How about filling in all the swimming pools? More children die of drowning in pools than in firearms accidents.

in 2005, 75 children 14 or younger were killed by the accidental discharge of a firearm (789 for all ages). 810 were drowned (3582 for all ages). In fact, almost every other type of accidental death is more likely to kill children than firearms.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf

http://www.poolalarms.com/pool_drowning_statistics.htm

In 1992 bicycles killed 260 14 and under. maybe we should ban bikes while we're at it?
http://www.helmets.org/cdcstats.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:23 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, just hearing you say that makes me need/want one.

I'm always cautious of people who decide, "Well, I certainly don't need or want to (insert action of your choice here), so of course no one else should, so we can ban it with a clear conscience." Even changing it to "Well, most people certainly don't need or want to..." doesn't make me any more comfortable.

Indeed. One of the more despicable examples of political 'reasoning'. Right up there with "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:42 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
93% of those homeowners failed to fire thier weapons.

93% of them did not NEED to.

The perps, expecting a disarmed and compliant victim set out on a plate for them by policies intended to make them easier for the Gov to victimise (and work just fine for other crooks too) - ran into someone NOT disarmed, NOT compliant, and found somewhere else to be in a hurry, oh what a horrible tragedy, no crime occured to blame on guns, no excuse to jack taxes and put more blue suited gangbangers with badges at the public trough....

Criminals in todays era EXPECT unarmed victims, and meek compliance, fact is when most of them run up across ANY FORM OF RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER, they've no clue what to do, and usually the resister wins out even if unarmed.

Making folks disarmed and compliant isn't the answer, just look at Miranda if you wanna see where that shit goes.

Making it life-threatening to be a predatory scumbag ?
That is.

I think I see your point. the old "they don't like it when you shoot at them", or merely point a weapon in defense accounts for the lack of shooting. Which is a good outcome. That's reasonable.

That whole wild west self serve law enforcement did a great job of scumbag prevention. And a compelling point is the tride and true "only the outlaws will have guns" thing.

But one ironic scenario still haunts me, it's the thought of me getting killed defending my rifles and revolver. That's "arse be ackward.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:48 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Heh.

i think if he tried to ban assault rifles (or guns period)....he might just find one of them used on him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:33 AM

Indeed Malbad, which is why we must take this stand here and now - if you get into exchanging lead with the powers that be, you're gonna bite it regardless of who's right or wrong, so best is to make sure it never comes to that.

The Second is a backstop for the failure of the First and Fourth, and while they haven't fallen yet, although the Fourth is teetering on the brink, we MUST defend them all, otherwise what's the point.

Hence my passionate disgust and revulsion with anyone who's willing to defend the others, but NOT the Second - to do that is an act of supreme ignorance and gross negligence.

The Second clearly means, and we've hashed this out a hundred times with pages and pages of quotes direct from the folks who wrote it - Military grade weapons in the hands of any american who wishes to have them*, without condition whatsoever.

*in fact, given the specifics of the discussion amongst the founders, it was considered negligent behavior to NOT have such handy in case of need for personal or community defense.

There's actually regs that partain to making SURE folks too poor to afford one had access to one, which blows up the myth that said right was ever to be restricted, as well as state constitutions that not only state shall not be infringed, but rather "Shall not be QUESTIONED" setting the bar even higher in order to make that very point.

Folks say times have changed, yadda yadda, but Liberty hasn't - never will.

Oh, and Wulfie - no, you impeach his ass, is what you do, we can NOT sit here and demand they play by the rules unless we do the same ourselves.

That does include defending yourself against a patently illegal assault and robbery (seizure) but does not whatsoever give anyone leave or cause to initiate hostile action.

I know yer pissed (and same some of that ire for the rightwingnuts pissing in the pond and thus discrediting and drowning out our "voice by making us seem intolerant wackjobs) but that's not the way to handle matters, if you stoop to rule of the gun, as the powers that be have, by virtue of infringing on the second and breaking the partity of arms that required "consent of the governed" then YOU are also breaching those rules, and in the end it will change nothing.

Nor will the sellouts of the NRA, busying paving the road to hell with their so-called good intentions that always seem to make money, but no progress... hmmm?

I work with THESE folk, and so should you.
http://www.jpfo.org/
(Even the *name* drives PN nuts, but if anyone knows the end result of meekly handing em over, they surely do.)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:24 AM

Just so the issue is better understood, here's a rather well thought out explaination by the author of The Probability Broach, L. Neil Smith.

http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm

Excerpted from above.

There are a great many individuals today, both in government and in the think-tanks and foundations that constitute their intellectual bodyguard, who look down on you and me and our families as livestock. The only thing they want from us is silent, compliant labor, so that they can take whatever we earn away from us and use it as they desire. Some of it they use against us in various ways to keep us silent and compliant.

Listen to them closely and you'll hear that we might as well be different species. They are an elite -- near demigods who are above everything, including the law. We are less than nothing, of no concern to them except for the tasks we perform and the wealth we create for them to steal. If some of us can play the violin, create beautiful paintings or sculptures, or bring audiences to tears with our singing or acting, those are just "stupid pet tricks" without real value or significance.

If some of us are attacked by others, what difference does guilt or innocence make when you're talking about livestock? Animals that defend themselves are no different from the animals being defended against -- unruly cattle are unruly cattle. Any ability we may develop to protect ourselves from predators simply isn't worth the risk it poses to our "owners", which is why crime statistics that prove gun ownership reduces crime mean nothing to them.

To make it clear: politicians and bureaucrats are the owners. The IRS does the milking and butchering. BATFE is engaged in a decades- long campaign to "poll" the American public by taking away their horns. There's a Chinese proverb somewhere about how disarming people makes them easier to tax. I can't find it just now, but the point is made.

The slightest hint of individuality perceived among us -- let alone of individualism -- is reflexively interpreted as a threat or at least a problem in crowd management, which is a polite euphemism for herding.

We are less than slaves, we are the beasts of the field.

Any of ya own cats, by any chance ?

You wouldn't logically fuck with a cat, considering that they have their own ideas about what they wanna do, and are fairly well armed for their size - the idea of trying to MAKE a cat do something will send a shudder through the spine of even a strong full size human being, even though the cat is a mere 6-8 pounds of fluff.

Despite which, if you confront that cat and try to MAKE it do something, you'll not by any chance whatever walk away unscathed - which means unless it's damned important, you're a LOT less likely to push matters, yes ?

And so, people declaw them - to make them less of a threat when they wish to shove their will upon the cat, don't they ?

Methaphorically, I have a full set of very fine and sharp little claws, with some big nasty teeth backing them up - and I've no intent to part with them so that I can be "handled" at someone elses convenience, hell no.

Take a lesson from that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:57 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Re: Cats

Best Metaphor Ever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:52 PM

Quote:
There is no reason why the average citizen would need/want to have have one.

You'd be better served by outlawing any automobile that can go more than 80mph, the highest posted speed limit in this country. No average citizen should need/want to go faster than that.

And in all reality, why not just ban automobiles entirely? No one absolutely NEEDS one - we seemed to build an entire nation before they were even invented - and they do kill an awful lot more of us every year than guns in the hands of citizens do.

As for ACTUAL "assault rifles", they're already illegal for most citizens to own, unless they have a Class III permit from the federal government. An "assault rifle" is classified as a rifle that is capable of "selective fire" in that it is capable of firing more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger. In other words, an "assault rifle" is a machine gun.

The Assault Weapons Ban seeks to make illegal any and all SEMI-AUTOMATIC versions of these weapons, weapons which are self-loading and capable of firing repeatedly without manual reloading, from an external magazine. Most such weapons come with magazines with a 10-round capacity, but there are larger-capacity magazines widely available.

Now, why would I want or need such a weapon? Well, for fun, for one thing. I enjoy shooting, and range time is expensive ($12-20/hour around here); the more time I spend shooting instead of reloading, the better bargain I'm getting. I don't NEED a large-capacity magazine to enjoy shooting, but I don't NEED a car that's capable of doing zero-to-sixty in less than five seconds or doing 155mph flat-out, either. But they sure can be fun, and there are LEGAL places to actually use them to their potential, so as long as I'm not breaking the law using such a thing, what's it to anyone else?

As for child locks, I have no children. I *rarely* have children in my house, and never without adult supervision. And when I *do* have visitors, I put my guns in a safe place. So what would child-safe locks do for me, except add more cost and nuisance to my life for no conceivable benefit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Re: Cats

Best Metaphor Ever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Seconded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 28, 2008 9:19 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Re: Cats

Best Metaphor Ever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Seconded.

I can haz gud Uzi tiemz now?

Reminds me of a dopey new Stephen King book I just finished featuring a "Cat From Hell" that manages to extract bloody satisfaction against the head of a cat-testing pharma giant.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:53 PM

CATE

I know this sounds stupid… but I think it just comes down to preventing guns from being sold to the morons of the country or:

People who have ever been in a psychiatric hospital for treatment over long periods of time (a year or longer) or repeated admissions for ‘dangerous’ behavioral issues or after many suicide attempts who are known to be a danger to those around them.

A criminal record for murder (depends the circumstances… have a gun if you were protecting your family from certain death… if that makes sense), rape, robbery, assaults, domestic violence, gang related crimes, serious drug crimes.

Or just do what my country does… unless you have a license with a gun association, are a cop or a farmer rasing certain livestock, then tough luck, you can’t have a freaking gun.

That’s just MY opinion, and of course there are certain circumstances to everything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 10:39 AM

Cate,
Most of the anti-moron steps you describe are already in place (to varying degrees). Indeed, the only things in your post that are not already in place is the gun club/cop/farmer thing. Conincidentally, this is the only part of your post that I disagree with.

The big problem I have with gun restriction legislation is this: I don't want a commitee of people, elected or not, deciding what's best for me, or what I do/do not need. I hold to this regardless of issue, be it guns, healthcare, or economics. I am the one who will rise or fall, live or die, based on these choices. I am the one with the most complete (and certainly the most relevant) view of my situation). If I come to the conclusion that my situation warrants an AK47, who are you ("you" in this case being anyone but me) to make that decision for me? I will always put the right of the individual over the will of the collective, and I doubt I'm alone in that line of thought.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 12:12 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

What's the deal with home invasions? Are they common? It seems Americans are obsessed with them, hence they have to armed to the teeth and are in constant fear about them. Don't most burglars wait until people are out to do over their house? Doesn't a bit of decent security and a dog have more affect than hanging around with a loaded assault weapon under your bed?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:11 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Amen Ago

What Cate is espousing is the dialect of the Sheeple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What's the deal with home invasions? Are they common? It seems Americans are obsessed with them, hence they have to armed to the teeth and are in constant fear about them. Don't most burglars wait until people are out to do over their house? Doesn't a bit of decent security and a dog have more affect than hanging around with a loaded assault weapon under your bed?

In some places, yes. Home invasions are very common. In others, not so much.

Firearms ownership is about a lot more that deterring (or defeating) a home invader. I own guns for hunting, plinking (target shooting), personal defense, and some just 'cause I have an interest in military history. I've never bought a gun out of fear. I've only carried an "assault weapon" once (in the vehicle during the Hurricane Ike evac). I've never once felt fear at the thought that someone else might be armed.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:19 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I understand that people own weapons for a whole range of reasons, however 'home invasion' or personal security' are commonly cited reasons. The reason I ask about 'how common?" is because I wonder what the actual liklihood on being burgled while someone is at home. I am speaking from experience as having been burgled (or as you guys would say burglarized) on a number of occasions at one premise I was living at years ago. The burglar(s) watched the house carefully to make sure I wasn't at home. My understanding is that most people who commit crimes are opportunists and would prefer not to encounter an owner or a dog, and look for empty, vulnerable locations. I wonder whether the fear of home invasions isn't played up by people with a vested interest (ie arms manufacturers, security companies etc)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:10 PM

Magons, part of the REASON they are common, and becoming more so, is that crooks in general have become dependant and expecting of disarmed folks who will meekly kneel to even the slightest hint of threat - and what with the sheer amount of no-knock raids, play on even armed folks reluctance to fire since they have to make a determination as to whether the creeps kicking in their door at 3am are cops or crooks (not that there's much difference anymore, imho) or face dire consequences.

Many of the smarter crooks have taken to impersonating police for these home invasions, particularly in the southern US.

Believe me, if they KNEW they'd face a hail of lead, this tactic would die out pretty quick.

-Frem

PS. Funny note on that, my new landlord took one look at Forquet when we did the pre-lease walkabout and was like "holy hell in a handbasket, that monster is LEGAL?!!".

I told him sure, wanna play with it next range day ?

He's gonna love it, I'm sure.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:12 PM

You are correct to an extent. Burglars are opportunists. They'd much rather hit a house when the owner was not there. Of course, if the owner IS there, they'd prefer that the owner not be able to defend him/herself.

The Dept. of Justice probably has all kinds of stats regarding home invasions, but remember that downtown Detroit and West Podunk, Texas will experience vastly different levels of crime.

Personal Security is a slightly different issue, but carrying a concealed handgun and toting an AK down Main Street are two different things.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:59 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Magons, part of the REASON they are common, and becoming more so, is that crooks in general have become dependant and expecting of disarmed folks who will meekly kneel to even the slightest hint of threat - and what with the sheer amount of no-knock raids, play on even armed folks reluctance to fire since they have to make a determination as to whether the creeps kicking in their door at 3am are cops or crooks (not that there's much difference anymore, imho) or face dire consequences.

Oh okay! Sounds terrible. Home invasions (here in Australia) where people are at home are actually quite rare, although they get a hell of lot of coverage when they do happen. Your average Joe Citizen doesn't tend to own firearms either, so its not like the crims are being deterred by that. Maybe our crims are more pathetic, most of them are poor, stupid junkies trying to fund their next fix, rather than any Ocean's 11, 12, 13 etc criminal masterminds with disguises and access to security codes.

i don't live where you do, so I can't accurately comment on your situation, but I do have a belief that we are all being fed a steady diet of fearmongering by both the media and politicans. The things we are told to fear most, coming face to face with armed intruder, being a target of terrorism, is so less likely to kill us than something mundane like being in a carcrash, or being the victim of domestic violence, or coming down with some unglamourous disease, or getting depressed and offing yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:45 PM

Re: Fear vs what's actually *likely* to hurt you..

Indeed, but see, that's exactly how I view guns, like a fire extinguisher, first aid kit or spare tire, better to never actually need it, but if you should, it can save your ass, yes ?

It's fairly rare that joe average runs up against a hostile, but over a lifetime the odds are significant enough to warrant some mitigation, and most carry pistols are neither large or heavy.

As for home defense, well, mine is admittedly overkill but I grew up in some VERY rough places and my personal philosophy is that if caps *are* busted, I wanna be the one left standing when the shooting stops.

I think, however, that even more dangerous than disarming folk physically by crapping on the Second Amendment, is the way the mindset has been thrust upon folk from preschool on up that self defense is wrong, or vile...

THAT kills more folk than anything in the world, because when face to face with a perp, most of the time ANY resistance is enough to send them packing, and the mere deployment of a firearm is enough to send them packing right quickly...

Where the FIRST DAMN THING THEY DO, at least in south baltimore, is call the cops in an attempt to get YOU disarmed and possibly charged with brandishing, isn't that nice ?
And all too often that works! *hisssss*

Or even worse is people who instantly knuckle under so meekly at the first sign of a threat, this strokes the ego of the perp and pushes all their little power/control buttons and usually causes them to commit *worse* just to feed their inner demons.

And folks are TAUGHT to bow down like that in the public schools here, cause any resistance generally causes a brawl, upsets the social pecking order, and annoys the administrators who care less about their charges than one does a pet, if they care at all.

Cops are every bit as bad, handing out that foolish advice to cooperate cause "It ain't worth your life" - well, firstly, maybe *I* think it is, if you can't defend your stuff, are not allowed to, do you really own it ?

Secondly, what's to guarantee the perp won't cap you afterwords to eliminate the witness, do you have any IDEA how often that happens to convenience store folk ?

And thirdly, remember, these are the same dimwits who's advice to rape victims used to be "Oh just lay back and enjoy it." - Police in general have no more respect or concern for the general population (i.e. non-cops) than a factory farm has for the livestock.

It's a stupid cycle, the schools and police discouraging folk from resisting, and criminals becoming expecting of, and dependant on, that very non-resistance to become such a threat.

Which of course then "justifies" more gun bans, more police, and bigger budgets....

To me, they're just different breeds of the criminal class, only we allow the ones wearing blue to lord over us due to the fairytale myth that words on paper can effectively insulate one from the nasty things in life.

It's all downright stupid, you ask me, and that's why I pack some iron, not because I want to, but because should I wind up facing some of those nasty things, and believe me I have, driving a cab in detroit and whatnot... I plan to be prepared to deal with it, rather than call folk who'd just as soon see ME arrested for daring to actually act in my own defense.

Only time I'd call em is if there's a mess to be cleaned up, they can earn their overblown salaries hauling off the mortal remains like the social janitors they are - given that they only show up AFTER the fact unless by miracle of coincidence they happen to be at the crime scene when it occurs.

And so, I am rather defensive of my ability to do so, given the ever increasing consequences of NOT doing so thanks to a criminal element emboldened by lack of resistance encouraged by the very folk supposed to be fighting crime.

You know the old saying, behave like a victim - and sooner or later someones gonna come along and accomodate you...

Well, I ain't nobodys victim, and ain't ever gonna be long as I got a choice in the matter.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:49 PM

Oh yeah, and I do NOT find it very comforting when a president-to-be has announced his intention to subvert the very document he's going to swear an Oath to defend and protect when they install him.

To be honest, I would consider that a disqualification for the office on the spot.

Wouldn't you ?

It says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Not a word about "sporting use" or "reasonable restrictions" or "permits" or whatnot, it says what it damned well says.

And he's already pre-announced his intent to not honor that.

Although no one else would really have the guts, I wonder if that could not be considered sufficient cause for a legal injunction, when you ponder it a bit.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 2:11 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

While we're looking for impeachable actions, especially when it comes to the Constitution, we should consider action against all Presidents who look to circumvent that all to perfect document.

It seems to me that I can recall a sitting President who did exactly that (ryhmes with tush).
Civil liberties, which were guaranteed in the Constitution, were seriously hampered, if not downright crippled, by changes in the nation's laws that allowed the government to perform otherwise illegal search, surviellance and siezures only on the suspiscion that someone, anyone, was a terrorist. This was just the tip of the iceberg.

The Constitution should not be tampered with...period. So yes, I agree, hang them by their thumbs from the Washington Monument if they attempt to change any portion of the Constitution.

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 2:55 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Damn Frem,

When you get on a roll, you are freakin golden.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 3:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
It seems to me that I can recall a sitting President who did exactly that (ryhmes with tush).
Civil liberties, which were guaranteed in the Constitution, were seriously hampered, if not downright crippled, by changes in the nation's laws that allowed the government to perform otherwise illegal search, surviellance and siezures only on the suspiscion that someone, anyone, was a terrorist. This was just the tip of the iceberg.

Hmm. Neither Wilson or Lincoln rhymes with tush. Nor does Roosevelt.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
While we're looking for impeachable actions, especially when it comes to the Constitution, we should consider action against all Presidents who look to circumvent that all to perfect document.

It seems to me that I can recall a sitting President who did exactly that (ryhmes with tush).
Civil liberties, which were guaranteed in the Constitution, were seriously hampered, if not downright crippled, by changes in the nation's laws that allowed the government to perform otherwise illegal search, surviellance and siezures only on the suspiscion that someone, anyone, was a terrorist. This was just the tip of the iceberg.

The Constitution should not be tampered with...period. So yes, I agree, hang them by their thumbs from the Washington Monument if they attempt to change any portion of the Constitution.

Tawabawho?

You'll get no argument from me. Hang the lot.
But when you do, remember that the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st, 4th, 5th, and all the rest.

Mercy is the mark of a great man.
Guess I'm just a good man.
Well, I'm alright.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 4:46 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

How about this...

Instead of trying to ban all weapons, or conviscate them, or price them out of ownership...

We make it law that you MUST be armed. You MUST carry AT LEAST a handgun (of no less than 9mm) on you at ALL TIMES. And you HAVE to know how to use it.

Unless you are a convicted criminal or crazy, EVERYONE must be armed, starting at 18.

(Before 18 you must carry a knife and know how to use it.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 5:02 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hmm. Neither Wilson or Lincoln rhymes with tush. Nor does Roosevelt.

Not in English...he's speaking Gibberish (the native tongue of Gibraltar) in which everthing rhymes with "tush" except "Crazytalk" which sounds like "Geezer".

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 6:15 AM

Glad to see ya back Zero, hope ya had fun.

As for the other stuff, wouldn't be their thumbs I'd wanna hang em from, and I'd have done so to about 90% of em if not more.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 6:24 AM

Wulf, it's called Kennesaw, Georgia.

And it WORKED.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=31381&m=561443

Of course, when it didn't match with the gun-grabbers predictions of social chaos and a "gunfight on every corner" - they dropped it right down the memory hole, believe it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 6:36 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I always thought/knew it would work.

Give a society the ways, rights, and means to protect themselves (from government AND from each other)...

Then there will be peace.

For all the whining many do for peace, they never REALLY want it. They will never take the steps to insure and enshrine it.

I don't believe that peace is just the calm between wars, but rather....it is found when every citizen has true freedom and the ability of self-determination.

That can only be had when everyone has the power to protect themselves. When the government (and its representatives) are held in check by that same power of the people.

In truth, why do we think we need cops?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 7:00 AM

Same reason we "need" Government.
*spits in disgust*

Either one is just a freakin plague masquerading as it's own cure - always was, always will be.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So, as you are now part of the plague....lol

Hows the cure going?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:48 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

In answer as to why we NEED assault weapons....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
It seems to me that I can recall a sitting President who did exactly that (ryhmes with tush).
Civil liberties, which were guaranteed in the Constitution, were seriously hampered, if not downright crippled, by changes in the nation's laws that allowed the government to perform otherwise illegal search, surviellance and siezures only on the suspiscion that someone, anyone, was a terrorist. This was just the tip of the iceberg.

Hmm. Neither Wilson or Lincoln rhymes with tush. Nor does Roosevelt.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Geezer, you seem to be coming from the "if someone did it before, it must be okay" train of thought. You don't seem to be denying that Bush did any of these things, only that he was as bad as the others at it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 9:16 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Also,

THIS TOO, is why we CLING to our guns...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 1, 2008 4:31 PM

It's goin well enough, Wulfie.

Good job on doing your own homework on the topic, would that more people did.

The facts of the matter are easily obtainable, so when folks ignore them and push an agenda based on information they *know* to be factually incorrect, it damned well ought to make people suspicious of their motives.

-Frem

Btw, since I couldn't get Kirk to read it, imma suggest it to you - John Ringo's "The Road to Damascus", available here.
http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0743471873/0743471873.htm

There's a lotta useful knowledge slid sideways into that work of fiction, as well as some political understandings you could use.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 3:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Geezer, you seem to be coming from the "if someone did it before, it must be okay" train of thought. You don't seem to be denying that Bush did any of these things, only that he was as bad as the others at it.

Actually, I'm curious why Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt - who all stomped on more rights and jailed more people than Bush ever did - are American heroes, and Bush alone is considered a criminal. One thing I've noted is that L W & R had a much more compliant press.

The other point I'm trying to make is that none of this is either new or "the worst violation of rights ever".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 8:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Geezer, you seem to be coming from the "if someone did it before, it must be okay" train of thought. You don't seem to be denying that Bush did any of these things, only that he was as bad as the others at it.

Actually, I'm curious why Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt - who all stomped on more rights and jailed more people than Bush ever did - are American heroes, and Bush alone is considered a criminal. One thing I've noted is that L W & R had a much more compliant press.

The other point I'm trying to make is that none of this is either new or "the worst violation of rights ever".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Thanks for the response. My short answer on why Bush seems so much worse than the others is that he's the freshest in our living memory. The others have been colored with nostalgia. It's kind of like that girl or guy you dumped in college, because he or she was just driving you crazy. When you remember that person now, it doesn't seem that bad, and you remember the good more than the bad.

I notice history hasn't been all that kind to Hitler, though. No one ever wants to know if Hitler loved puppies. ;)

I try to paint Bush as "the worst in recent memory" or "worst in a generation", but rarely will I refer to him as the worst president ever. There are some who are almost completely unknown - they never even did enough to get noticed. Surely some of them are worse.

At any rate, history will be the judge. And as Bush says, in history we'll all be dead!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 9:52 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER

Question: Who has the "Assault Weapon" in this pic?

Yes, the Red Coats.
Weapons of special manufacture strictly for military use is pretty much the definition of "Assault Weapon". Beyond that they are a destructive device reserved for Law Enforcement, Military, and individuals with proper licensing. Any civilian owned firearm resembling such weapons is considered a sporting arm. Their physical resemblance is the end of their likeness. To posess, modify, or acquire those weapons is illegal through federal laws. So my EVIL AR15 is not an M16. They have several different internal mechanical parts. Putting those parts in my sporting arm makes it an illicit weapon capable of firing in full automatic mode.

Why does someone like me need a weapon like this?
It is light, accurate, and easy to use. With five round magazines it is legal for me to hunt deer with it in my state. With thirty round mags it is an appropriate weapon to defend my home. It stows easily behind the seat of whatever vehicle I drive. Utility of such a weapon is much more than any of the others I posess.

Back to the picture. Notice that only the armed Imperialists stand straight and sure against a lesser armed crowd. Even some time after going to war the colonists were still outgunned and had to rely upon courage in the face of danger, guerilla warefare over being outgunned in a skirmish line, and determination against an empires will over them.

Of course they did end up forming an army and were issued "Asault Weapons". But after all is said and done they were returned to the armory just as they are today. We are still left with the lesser weapon. But I'd rather have my sporting arm than no arm at all. Any aspiring dictator knows and fears this.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The country is making a big mistake not teaching kids to cook and raise a garden and build fires.
-Loretta Lynn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:20 AM

Related to that, NVG, you wanna do some research into the Battle of Kings Mountain.

The single incident proved beyond a doubt that if comparably armed, and possessing the will to do so - ordinary everyday americans could go toe to toe with genuine military forces, and carry the day.

And it was THAT incident, as much as anything else that lead to the Second Amendment being held in such esteem by men who's nation might not have come to fruition without those ordinary folk, who, possessing such weapons and will, would always be a check against abuses and usurpations, thus *requiring* the "consent of the governed" rather than rule by superior force.

Right up till they tried to withdraw that consent in 1861, and Lincoln drowned them in the bodies of conscripts forced to fight* (a form of slavery in and of itself) and their own, till there was almost nobody left down there able and willing to fight.

And it's been rule of the gun ever since.

-Frem

*PS - And mind you, this jerk actually shelled the city of new york with artillery in response to draft riots, what does that tell you when the southern forces were primarily volunteers ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:31 AM

Notice how bloody similar Lincolns response was to folks who did not want to slaughter their brethren for his agenda ?

If the folks he was pushing to fight their countrymen had been comparably armed, there might not have BEEN a civil war.

Ponder that a while.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:35 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
In answer as to why we NEED assault weapons....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg

Yeah, because we need yahoos who love their guns (a bit too much) to start shooting at rescue workers.

In the other thread, you kept asking why releif workers confiscated guns. The answer is - nutjobs like you.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:39 AM