REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Assault Weapons Ban

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Friday, December 5, 2008 07:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7018
PAGE 2 of 4

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:44 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


With so many views and attrocities during war time it is always a little hard to tell right from wrong. Again we are in a time of war and many are grasping at whatever straws they can reach. Everyone wanted change, well here it is. We on the road to pacification. I've heard a few men from the UK refer to their service to the crown as enforcement of her Majestey's divine emasculation.

I for one value my freedom (and my man parts) far too much to allow such a travesty to occur. Sure my vote was cast. But was it counted. I'm still to see the numbers for None Of These Candidates.

And the sayings stand true.
The losing side isn't always the wrong side.
Love, life, and the pusuit of happiness.
Freedom isn't free.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 10:47 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok, we get it Story...


Youd be on the side of the jackboots taking the weapons from the ordinary citizens.

If we do come to a civil war, please wear a bright red coat and giant feathers so I can find you in the fray.




Hardly. I'm just not gonna get bent outta shape because the paranoid elements and get-hard-lookin-at-a-big-gun types like you are loosing their toys.



"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 11:06 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


DOn't worry. The US government is notorious for disarming folks then murdering them prefering to call it a battle rather than a massacre or retribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

Forget freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and free speech. These people were the first Americans and were denied those rights until 1924.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 11:31 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"Hardly. I'm just not gonna get bent outta shape because the paranoid elements and get-hard-lookin-at-a-big-gun types like you are loosing their toys."




Yeah, you go ahead and get bent.

Assclown.


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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 12:58 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Storymark, I'm dismayed that the only freedoms you care to uphold are the freedoms that you are personally using at the moment.

Or... Are you willing to uphold even those?

Are there any freedoms you wouldn't sell to obtain the illusory eden called SAFETY?

--Anthony

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

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 1:12 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Wow. I just asked that question of myself. I'd give up my guns for real safety. But men are not angels so I don't see it happening in this life. Maybe I'll get lucky in the next.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 1:22 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


He doesnt care. If the order came from on high to ignore the Constitution, hed do it.

He, like so many in law enforcement, believe that laws come from men, and "officials".






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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 1:22 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Hardly. I'm just not gonna get bent outta shape because the paranoid elements and get-hard-lookin-at-a-big-gun types like you are loosing their toys."




Yeah, you go ahead and get bent.

Assclown.




Looks like I touched a nerve. Go rub your gun a little, it'll make you feel better.

"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 1:26 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


AnthonyT or any of the other pro gun folks on this thread: perhaps you can help me understand better... I assumed this conflict between pro and anti gun people was do in large part to a huge lack of communication.

One side believes reducing the number of guns will reduce violent crime and the other side believes the right to bare arms is primary to their personal freedom as US citizens.

I thought that was the debate in a nutshell. I thought it was just a matter of time before both sides would find common ground.

But now, for the first time in... ever I'm hearing this idea of civil war and "Our Government is Bad," and we need to arm ourselves to protect us from the Police and The Gov, almost as much as from burglars and break-ins. What gives? What have I been missing? Who's the enemy?

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 1:26 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Storymark, I'm dismayed that the only freedoms you care to uphold are the freedoms that you are personally using at the moment.

Or... Are you willing to uphold even those?

Are there any freedoms you wouldn't sell to obtain the illusory eden called SAFETY?

--Anthony

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



Okay, I'll try to approach this answer politely, since unlike Wulfentard, you asked it more or less in that vein (I'll let your implied insults slide for now).

It has nothing to do with selling out rights for safety - I'm very much agaist infringing on rights for safety. Personally, I don't like guns. However, I don't support banning them in general. Registration and restrictions (felons, ect) are fine by me.

But I've yet to see a compelling argument for why people NEED assault weapons. A handgun is generally going to be far more usefull for self defense, and if it comes down to fighting the US military - an AR isn't gonna make the difference.

I'm not saying assault weapons should be banned either - but I don't really care if they are, because I don't see a nessecity for having them.

In my experience - and I'm not saying it's universally true - but those who I know who are upset over an assault weapon ban are the gun nuts. Guys who get off on having bigger, badder guns. They talk big about constitutional rights, but are okay with other rights being taken away, as long as you don't threaten their favorite toy. And in that case, no, I'm not going to fight for someones right to have a big fuckin' toy. There are far, far more importants things top worry about.

"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 1:28 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
He doesnt care. If the order came from on high to ignore the Constitution, hed do it.

He, like so many in law enforcement, believe that laws come from men, and "officials".




Well, that doesn't actually apply to anything I said. But I bet you feel better about yourself for getiing all self-righteous.

Fuck you, chump. You can rail at me all you like, but the opinion a scared bigot like yourself matters to me not at all.

But who, other than men, make the laws?

Go ahead, say God. I need a laugh.

"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 1:35 PM

CHRISISALL



Post deleted for, um...makin' poster look dumb, and s**t..

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 1:38 PM

STORYMARK


Chris, you just mis-attributed....

(but he fixed it)

"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 2:18 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Storymark, first I think we need to define 'gun nut.' Then we need to define 'assault weapon.' Just so I can make sure we're on the same page.

When the stresses of life get me down, I have a ritual I perform. I put on my cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and cowboy-esque leather belt and leather holsters. I strap on my Taurus Gaucho .357 single-action, and my Heritage Manufacturing .22 single-action. I take up my plastic SKS rifle case. If I have enough .380 ammo handy, I'll even bring my Makarov. Then I'll get into my Kia Sportage, drive for about 40 minutes until I get to the Middle Of Nowhere, Arizona. Once I'm there, I'll set out some targets (like the old coke cans and bottles littering the floor of my car) or find some that some other shooter before me left laying around. Then I'll shoot the targets. When I get tired of shooting, I'll pull out the folding chair and take a nap. It's fun to take a nap in Nowhere. Just you and the dust and the mountains and rocks. When I'm done, I'll pack up my stuff and head home, usually after 4-6 hours. If I go with friends, we'll spend a lot of our time out there eating barbecued hotdogs from a portable grill and chatting. And I'm the only one of my friends who can take a nap while everyone else is shooting. It takes talent.

I love guns. Amazing tools, them. And I love shooting. I don't keep score, but I do consider it a sport. I'm a gun nut, an urban cowboy, one of those crazies who'd love to have a locker full of firearms in my house. Sometimes I'll take one out and take it apart a little, and clean it... Even when it's not dirty. There's something meditative about gun oil, I think.

Of my guns, ALL of them are based on the design of a military or police weapon. The single-action revolvers are patterned after Colt Peacemakers, which were Army revolvers. The SKS was the Soviet combat rifle prior to the massive production of the AK-47. It even has a combat bayonet attached. The Makarov was the official sidearm of the KGB, though mine is chambered in an American caliber. I don't happen to own an AK-47, which is something you'd probably call a modern assault rifle. Someday, though, I'd like to. I'd like to have a 7.62 Russian rifle that doesn't need stripper-clips. I can see me loading up a dozen mags while watching a favorite television show, and taking them out to Nowhere with me to do my shooting. That's what I do with the stripper clips, now. It's very relaxing.

Now, for some reason I can't understand, you sound as though you begrudge me these simple pleasures. I can't fathom why.


Pizmo, as for your question, a very useful function of firearms is to provide defense. Who you are defending yourself against can vary from crack addicts to power addicts. God willing, the victims of my weapons will always be 12 and 20 ounce soft-drink containers.

--Anthony

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

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 2:27 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Bigger gun, this and that. Handgun=PDW. Sidearm. In a real fight it means almost nothing.

For real people it isn't the tiny penis syndrome seen so often with vehicles, houses, money...

Of course since Law Enforcement is so quick to react to disturbances and all...

Naturally it is sometimes people who've never been on the bad side of the gun to poo poo at logical and responsible owners and fanatics alike. I've never known a LEO who didn't support the right to BEAR arms and were in favor of people being their own best defenders. Sure they are scared of weapons, but I'm sure they also consider the implications of citizens who could not defend themselves.

After seeing this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/?omg
earlier today it brought back an old thought I had. Is this the "safety" we seek? Being watched over by soldiers with actual "Assault Weapons".

And again, that is the illusion many cling to. Wait until your group, religion, or creed pisses off the wrong people. Our history has a plethora of examples of massacre and retribution. I made referance to one and received nary a response to it. Paranoid?

Seeing as those people referenced followed a religion started a few miles from my home by people of my blood and color. Reminders to those who didn't grow up with stories of murdered children as a warning only to see such things as an adult because of the illusion of that security.

For those who cry "Paranoia" I accept that as your answer. Truth carries farther than ignorance. Until all the people who care about the truth are dead of course.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 6:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I think it's funny to watch a zealot accuse another zealot of being unreasonable.

Frankly, I prefer "gun nuts" to "for your own good" in spite of the obvious human flaws of either.

And apparently my commentary about defending all Constitutional rights was as usual, missed or ignored.

History tells the tale, if only anyone listens.

Registration - Confiscation - Obliteration.

We've seen the first two already, right here in america - do we really have to wait till we see the last to care ?

Oh, and as for "shooting at rescue workers" you *DO* know those stories were as thoroughly debunked as any other flim-flam faery tale the media has tried to sell us ?

Is it really the tool you fear, or the idea that as long as I possess it, you'll have a damn hard time forcing your will upon me... "for my own good".

Cause I truly believe it's the latter.

-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 7:27 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Frem, you've forgotten the obvious third option.

People who don't want you to have guns are generally afraid. Afraid of what someone with a gun might do to them. You've become so focused on 'the man' and his endless desire to do stuff to you, that you've forgotten about the climate of fear bred to control those on the bottom rungs of the ladder.

They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.

They are afraid of you.

--Anthony


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

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 7:28 PM

KWICKO

"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)


Anthony, I'm right there with you. Shooting doesn't fill me with blood-lust and send me on a killing frenzy; it relaxes me. There's something very calming about slowing things down, controlling your breathing, squeezing the trigger slowly, and putting five bullets into the size of a quarter at 100 yards on iron sights. It's not something you can do UNLESS you're relaxed, in fact, or at least I can't.

And for the uninitiated, maybe some of them can explain what it is, exactly, that makes a semi-automatic version of an AK-47 an "assault rifle", while a semi-automatic SKS is not. Is it the grip? The caliber? The magazine? The barrel length?

What is it exactly that people have against "assault weapons"? Is it the POSSIBILITY of what someone MIGHT do with one? Did you ever stop to ask yourself the simple questions: If I'm motivated to kill, do I need a gun to do it? Couldn't I take out just as many people with a car, a sword, a chainsaw?

And yes, all of my guns are based on, or actually ARE, military weapons. Even my Ruger P85 9mm handgun is just another variant of the Browning-designed M1911 .45 military sidearm. Then there's the AK-47 variations: a Saiga "Sporter" 7.62x39mm and a Norinco MAK-90 7.62x39mm, a hoary old bolt-action Russian Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54mm, and an Argentine-built FN/FAL .308, one of the world's best main battle rifles.

Funny thing, though - of all of them, only the handgun (which Storymark considers "acceptable") came with a magazine with a capacity over 10 rounds. The Saiga and the FAL have 10-round mags (you CAN modify the Saiga to take 30-round mags, but doing so in a careless fashion is a federal violation that can net you 10 years at Club Fed), the MAK and the Nagant have 5-rounders (internal on the Nagant). The Ruger shipped with two 15-round mags.

Only one of them has a pistol grip - the FAL. Only two of them fire full-sized rifle cartridges - the FAL and the Mosin-Nagant. The AK variants fire a shorter carbine round, and as such have a much shorter effective range.

None of them are automatic weapons. All but the bolt-action Mosin-Nagant are semi-automatic, and as such lack any capability to fire full-auto or bursts of two or three rounds with a pull of the trigger.

What I'd really like to know is which of these you'd classify as an "assault weapon", and what criteria you're basing these classifications on, other than the "evil black gun" mantra that is so often touted in the media. Why is a semi-auto AK variant with a 5- or 10-round magazine more dangerous than a semi-auto handgun with a (completely legal) 15-round magazine? Why is an AK considered more "evil" than an old bolt-action rifle with a much greater effective range and a much more powerful cartridge?

Also, can you think of any reason I couldn't go hunting with an AK-47 rather than a 30-06, if I chose to do so? I mean, other than the fact that a hunter with an AK will have to get closer, thus giving the intended target a better chance to get away.

Just a few things to ponder...

Mike

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 8:09 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Frem, you've forgotten the obvious third option.

People who don't want you to have guns are generally afraid. Afraid of what someone with a gun might do to them. You've become so focused on 'the man' and his endless desire to do stuff to you, that you've forgotten about the climate of fear bred to control those on the bottom rungs of the ladder.

They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.

They are afraid of you.

--Anthony




I think there is quite a bit of truth in this.

If you are not part of a gun culture, your association with weapons is not sport or hobby, it's what you see in the news and the movies and that is always gun violence. Shooting at people. Efficient killing. Aggression. People feeling great affection for guns are therefor suspect. Why do they like to shoot at human-shaped targets? What if they get mad at their neighbor? Will they feel justified in finally brandishing their dangerous toys to demonstrate how "strong" they are?

(Guns are pretty much the ultimate ridiculous - the bigger the more so - phallic symbol, which doesn't help make it seem like it's not supposed to overcompensate for something not quite right.)

The image of a peaceful, responsible, competent gun owner isn't promoted a lot.

I'm a victim of this association myself.

It took me a while to recognize this instant association as wrong, and it always takes work to move beyond it when thinking about subjects like this.

Once I did, my opinions about gun control changed, as well.

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

They are afraid of you.


You know what I got to say to that ?

GOOD!

Bible-nuts have historically slaughtered far and away more people than Gun-nuts, and if the former are afraid of the latter I rate that as a damned good thing, maybe it'll prevent then next genocidal slaughter in the name of love and mercy.

Yes that's a deliberate slap - but frankly if they wanna try to strip me of a Constitutional Right (to keep and bear arms) then I feel it only fair to suggest stripping them of theirs (freedom of religion and it's expression) - given that factually Christianity is a far more dangerous thing than individual firearm ownership, and all Christians should have to undergo a mandatory psychological evaluation, register with their local police and wear an RFID monitor so they can be kept track of - and should be barred from entering schools and public forums where their murderous ideas might be shared, as well as any "Christian-Free" zone that a private property owner has set up.

That's fair, isn't it ?

Doesn't taste so pleasant when it's aimed at YOU, does it now ?

I'll leave it to your own wonderings how much of that was snark and how much was serious, just to keep ya guessing.


As for exactly WHAT people carry - why does anyone care ?

Look at it this way, you don't NEED an air ratchet to get them lugnuts off, a long handled socket wrench would do just fine, but it sure makes things more convenient, yes ?

It's a goddamn tool, is all that it is - and to fear it is ludicrous.

When I am out and about, my carry piece is a downright laughable little popgun, just enough to defend myself with at close range, and my method of dealing with conflict is to avoid them or de-escalate them before they become a problem, and it's worked pretty damned well for many a year.

Of course, this is also based on the fact that while out and about I have my leg on and functional, and quick access to a vehicle.

At home, different story - look, folks, I happen to be all of 5'6" and about 130lbs soakin wet, and badly disabled besides, I don't really have the option of engaging physically or running away, and without my glasses on I can't hardly see a damn thing or very far, which discards most of the options damned fools arguing against self-defense take for granted, not to mention if cornered in my HOME, imma stand to the very last spitting breath, or I'd never be able to look at myself in the mirror again.

So hell yes, my home defense weapon is massive overkill, given the fact that I am NOT physically able, large and muscular, clear sighted or fleet of foot, not to mention gettin old besides.

And THAT is what I am compensating for, the simple fact that I am a civilized person and by no means capable of going mano-a-mano with a young, tough thug and having that be an even contest, not to mention I am not STUPID enough to give a bad guy a fair fight just because some ignorant morons ego thinks I should, hell no.

Being able to put 20 rounds of single-O buckshot down the hallway ensures that I will never *need* to, even if the perp has brought all his friends to help him intimidate me and carry away the loot, which is rare, but as damn fools do their level best to serve up their fellow man disarmed on a platter thanks to a downright idiotic belief that words on paper are some kind of magic force (kinda like their hellspawned religions), it ain't gonna be rare for long.

My weapons, and my possession of them, are expressly and wholly for the purpose of defending my life, property and rights from those who would take them from me by force, and other than keeping in practice with function, operation and safety, that is the ONLY thing they are, and ever will be, used for.

And if you have a problem with THAT - then I have a problem with YOU.

Cause it means your intentions are something other than you pretend them to be.

There's three kinds of people in the world...

There is the man who says he is out to take what is yours.

He is a businessman, and can be dealt with by demanding something of equal or greater value in return.

There is the man who says he means to help you, but really means to take from you.

He is a thief, and is dealt with easily enough by not giving them the opportunity or trust required to do you harm.

And then there is the man who says he means well, who actually BELIEVES he means well, but still winds up taking from you or harming you.

And those are the very worst, because their belief in the rightness of their own cause gives them internal moral excuses for even the most foul of deeds, which they commit without hesitation nor regret, over and over again.

And most of them don't like guns, cause it gets in the way of their precious little agenda and angers them that folks would dare resist them imposing their standards, beliefs and morals on the lives of others without regard to how those folk feel about it.

Well, ain't that just too damned bad, then - the same document that gives those folk the right to express such idiotic beliefs without being locked up somewhere also gives others the right to defend themselves from having those idiotic beliefs imposed on them by force.

And if ya don't like it, that's too bad, that document ensures *everyones* rights are protected, not just yours!


-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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 7:03 AM

KWICKO

"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:


The image of a peaceful, responsible, competent gun owner isn't promoted a lot.

I'm a victim of this association myself.

It took me a while to recognize this instant association as wrong, and it always takes work to move beyond it when thinking about subjects like this.

Once I did, my opinions about gun control changed, as well.



And this bugs me quite a bit - the whole "the way they're portrayed means it's okay to think that way about guns and people who like them."

Tell ya what: try applying that logic to black people, and see where that gets you. Sure, they're portrayed a certain way in the media, so does that make it okay to be bigoted against them?

Just curious. It's interesting to watch people who supposedly have no prejudices actually reveal what theirs are. And we ALL have prejudices of some sort or another. I guess for some, it's just prejudice against gun owners that's okay and acceptable...

Mike

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 7:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.

They are afraid of you."

Many people are afraid of people with guns - for several good reasons: drive-bys, car-jackings, mart-robberies ...


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 7:11 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,


Now, for some reason I can't understand, you sound as though you begrudge me these simple pleasures. I can't fathom why.




It's not that I begrudge you your habits. Other than the nap in nowhere (I like that idea), nothing you said sounds remotely interesting to me. You like it, cool. But I don't see how because you like to do this - an assault weapon is NEEDED. If you enjoy it - hey, that's none of my concern. But I'm not going to care if you have to step down to a smaller weapon, either.

And I guess, from your description, you'd fall under my definition of "gun nut". Don't get me wrong - I don't mean that as an insult. I have friends who I would call gun nuts, as well. But the scenario you just presented doesn't have anything to do with the constitution, or defense, as was the topic at hand. It was strictly recreational - and as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun.



"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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 7:18 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


It is hard to agree with 100% of people 100% of the time, especially here in RWED. But I love the way everyone has stated their views and opinion in this thread.

I understand the fear of people without knowledge and experience with weapons, violence, de-escalation, and downright fear of what some people are willing to do to others for their own personal gain and pleasure. I commend any man or woman who feels whole heartedly that they do not need weapons, only the words and spirit of peace and goodwill between men.

Honestly, one of my wishes for this life is to be able to transcend into a being of that manner. But for now I must settle with what I have. That is the knowledge and experience that unless we defend ourselves we will be pacified and lulled into a sense of false security. Humans are not evolved enough to accept that peace for ourselves yet. Our bodies still cling to more primal and visceral conditioning. I am lucky to still be relativey young, healthy, conditioned for threats and posative response, and happen to be fairly large in built and strength. Regardless I still have to agree with being in my home or with my family. One or two threats can be talked out, then handled physically as a last resort. I'd rather not shoot someone. It's not a ruined day or just a bunch of paperwork. There are lingering effects that never go away. But the safety of my loved ones far outweighs the life of one who wishes to do them harm. This stands true with my neighbors, someone walking down the street, children of my community. If it is the last resort than so be it. Before that I am a member of this community, a mandated reporter, and a human being concerned with the well being of others. I honestly gave up caring what people think of my decsision to be a gun owner. People who judge others according to what other people say or lump people together by demographic are just sad. It is improper threat asessment and hurts more than it helps.

ADD:
Kwicko- +1
Rue- Those people are criminals who will have weapons regardless if I have mine or not. The differance is they are less reluctant to enter a home of most people because THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING SHOT.
Storymark- It is getting harder and harder to listen to your argument since you keep misdefining "Assault Weapon". Educate yourself then make a logical argument. I'll keep my sporting arms while the sheeple cry out for the banning of "Assault Weapons". NEWFLASH! They are already illicit destructive devices to the regular citizen.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 8:41 AM

FREMDFIRMA


That's almost worth a giggle, Rue.

Could you really see me doin any of those things, doll ?

It'd be as ludicrous as THIS.
http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=59&qid=471&PHPSESSID=2fafed0ec8
f50f25f609217fda2c2f48


-F

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 8:42 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Storymark, you apparently missed the last part of my post, which briefly dealt with the other benefit of gun ownership.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you about the dozens of times I killed people to protect my family. This is because, very thankfully, I never had to shoot anyone. I hope I never will. But these guns that put holes in aluminum cans also do quite a good job of putting holes in people.

Let us put aside that, though, for now. You said some things that bother me quite a bit.

1) "I'm not going to care if you have to step down to a smaller weapon, either."

What exactly do you consider a 'smaller weapon' and do you have any conception of how 'big' the weapons are that I described to you? Do you know anything about the firearms I own? Is it the 'size' of the weapon that troubles you, and if so, what 'size' is acceptable in your philosophy? I note with interest that we are no longer discussing 'assault' weapons but rather 'size.'



2) "as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun."

I agree that there are more things to worry about than my fun. I worry every day about my freedoms, and the freedoms of others. I worry that people will try to take away my freedoms so that they can have the illusion of safety.

I worry about historical fencers having their swords outlawed for the public good.

I worry about adults being told that they can't carry pocket folding knives, because they might spontaneously decide to cut someone's throat with it.

I worry about people being told that they can't have a car engine that has more than 100 horsepower, because anything higher than that is excessively powerful.

I worry about martial arts being outlawed, because some people use the techniques to beat up other people.

I worry about pornography being outlawed, because it might corrupt children, and because some men get addicted to those 36DD's.

I worry about violence in movies being outlawed, because some people get excited when watching it, and go out and hurt someone else.

I worry about big black dildos being outlawed, because someone beat someone else to death with one.

I worry about a world where the only way people can feel safe is to remove all the things that might hurt them.

I worry about you, Storymark, and I worry about your vote. I worry that you want to shrink or remove my guns because you don't see the importance of my 'fun' when you should be concerning yourself instead over the importance of my 'freedoms.'

Please don't let your fear empower you to take away my freedoms.

--Anthony



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

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 8:57 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Quote:

I worry about you, Storymark, and I worry about your vote. I worry that you want to shrink or remove my guns because you don't see the importance of my 'fun' when you should be concerning yourself instead over the importance of my 'freedoms.'


Funny. I keep hearing the whole thing about size compensation and phallic symbols but those arguments seem to be coming from people without a phallus or possibly who have "size" issues of their own.

Also funny, my AR15 (which stands for Armalite, the company that made the weapon, not "Assault Rifle") uses a .224 caliber bullet. It is one of the smallest calibers used for modern centerfire rifles. Other common small calibers are .17 (as big as a bb/pellet from most pellet guns)and .20. How much smaller do you want the gun to be. I think making guns bigger is more logical. It is much harder to conceal hunting rifle than it is to conceal a handgun. Centerfire handguns take larger caliber bullets than many rifles. They are just shorter with a slower burning powder.




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 8:58 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Originally posted by Storymark:

...as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun.





Such as...? Seems the Founding Fathers had a word or two to say about "the pursuit of happiness", didn't they? Sounds like fun was one of the things they wanted most to protect.

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:05 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Originally posted by rue:
"They want your guns because they've been told that if you have a gun, you'll do something crazy with it, maybe even kill them.

They are afraid of you."

Many people are afraid of people with guns - for several good reasons: drive-bys, car-jackings, mart-robberies ...


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.



Rue, are you afraid of cars, and do you think they should be outlawed because people break the law with them?

What you are describing (drive-bys, carjackings, robberies) are CRIMES, whether or not there's a gun involved. And there are many, many laws on the books already that severely up the penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime. What you're proposing is like treating dandruff by decapitation - it's a bit of overkill.

I am physically capable (although not mentally capable, thank goodness) of murdering someone with a hammer, or a scarf, or a guitar string, or a shoe. Should all of those things be outlawed?

What I'm trying to say is that the problem isn't that you have people murdering people with guns - it's that you have people wanting to murder people in the first place. Taking away their guns won't cure them of the urge, it will just make them find different weapons.

Mike

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:14 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Storymark, you apparently missed the last part of my post, which briefly dealt with the other benefit of gun ownership.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you about the dozens of times I killed people to protect my family. This is because, very thankfully, I never had to shoot anyone. I hope I never will. But these guns that put holes in aluminum cans also do quite a good job of putting holes in people.

Let us put aside that, though, for now. You said some things that bother me quite a bit.

1) "I'm not going to care if you have to step down to a smaller weapon, either."

What exactly do you consider a 'smaller weapon' and do you have any conception of how 'big' the weapons are that I described to you? Do you know anything about the firearms I own? Is it the 'size' of the weapon that troubles you, and if so, what 'size' is acceptable in your philosophy? I note with interest that we are no longer discussing 'assault' weapons but rather 'size.'



2) "as I said before, there are far more important things to worry about than your fun."

I agree that there are more things to worry about than my fun. I worry every day about my freedoms, and the freedoms of others. I worry that people will try to take away my freedoms so that they can have the illusion of safety.

I worry about historical fencers having their swords outlawed for the public good.

I worry about adults being told that they can't carry pocket folding knives, because they might spontaneously decide to cut someone's throat with it.

I worry about people being told that they can't have a car engine that has more than 100 horsepower, because anything higher than that is excessively powerful.

I worry about martial arts being outlawed, because some people use the techniques to beat up other people.

I worry about pornography being outlawed, because it might corrupt children, and because some men get addicted to those 36DD's.

I worry about violence in movies being outlawed, because some people get excited when watching it, and go out and hurt someone else.

I worry about big black dildos being outlawed, because someone beat someone else to death with one.

I worry about a world where the only way people can feel safe is to remove all the things that might hurt them.

I worry about you, Storymark, and I worry about your vote. I worry that you want to shrink or remove my guns because you don't see the importance of my 'fun' when you should be concerning yourself instead over the importance of my 'freedoms.'

Please don't let your fear empower you to take away my freedoms.

--Anthony



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



You keep going back to fear. Let me make this clear to you - I'm not afraid of guns. I just don't agree on the nessecity of them. You may disagree, but it's a dick move to simply ignore what was stated, and keep spouting the same shite.

I also already addressed defense. A handgun or shotgun is going to be far more useful for self defense, since most cases of self defense gun use are not long protracted gunfights, and are quick exchanges, usueally at close range. Which I think answers the question about size. You want a high-powered pistol handy for defense, cool. You want to use an AR-15 for defense, again, I don't care, but it seems a hell of a lot less usefull in any situation you are likely to face, and I don't mind if they're banned, because I don't see a NEED for them.

Sure, if the Zombie apocalypse comes, or Wulfy's Civil War wet-dream, a weapon like that might be more usefull, but so would a tank. Why shouldn't they be street-legal, too?

Once again - I'm not advocating a ban. But I won't be upset if there is one, either. You may not like my position, but you are going to have to live with it.

"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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:20 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Originally posted by nvghostrider:
Funny. I keep hearing the whole thing about size compensation and phallic symbols but those arguments seem to be coming from people without a phallus or possibly who have "size" issues of their own.

Also funny, my AR15 (which stands for Armalite, the company that made the weapon, not "Assault Rifle") uses a .224 caliber bullet. It is one of the smallest calibers used for modern centerfire rifles. Other common small calibers are .17 (as big as a bb/pellet from most pellet guns)and .20. How much smaller do you want the gun to be. I think making guns bigger is more logical. It is much harder to conceal hunting rifle than it is to conceal a handgun. Centerfire handguns take larger caliber bullets than many rifles. They are just shorter with a slower burning powder.



Yup and yup. I guess I must be conflicted about my size envy or shortcomings - I like guns, but I drive a very small car. Could it be that overall I'm pretty happy with my size (I'm 6'8", 250 lbs, size 16 shoes, if that helps), and can't for the life of me understand why companies like "Extenze" stay in business, unless it's off of preying on peoples' insecurities in that area.

But for the record, Storymark, please explain to us what downsizing you'd like to see in our guns. An "assault weapon" is already, by definition, shorter than a regular hunting rifle or a main battle rifle. It's smaller by design, for use in close-quarters combat, such as door-to-door situations. So you want us to use something SMALLER, something EASIER to carry and conceal, something EASIER to carry a whole shitload of ammo for? Is that what you're looking for?

What about something like this?



It's smaller than a typical assault rifle, both in overall size and in cartridge and bullet size. Would something like that make you happy? 'Cuz I'd sure like one, but at around $1800, they ain't cheap. The "bullpup" design is growing on me, though - it keeps the 20" barrel of a longer weapon (and its accuracy), but puts it all in a much shorter package for clearing rooms and doorways quickly.

So when you say you want to downsize our fun, what is it that you mean, exactly?

Mike

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Rue- Those people are criminals who will have weapons regardless if I have mine or not. The differance is they are less reluctant to enter a home of most people because THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING SHOT."

They let their bullets do the entering while they stay in their cars.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:25 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

But for the record, Storymark, please explain to us what downsizing you'd like to see in our guns. An "assault weapon" is already, by definition, shorter than a regular hunting rifle or a main battle rifle. It's smaller by design, for use in close-quarters combat, such as door-to-door situations. So you want us to use something SMALLER, something EASIER to carry and conceal, something EASIER to carry a whole shitload of ammo for? Is that what you're looking for?



Jesus, I've said 3 times I meant handguns. Do you people read?

I know a lot of guys with AR's. And the first thing they all want to do is convert it to full-auto.

"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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:31 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

But for the record, Storymark, please explain to us what downsizing you'd like to see in our guns. An "assault weapon" is already, by definition, shorter than a regular hunting rifle or a main battle rifle. It's smaller by design, for use in close-quarters combat, such as door-to-door situations. So you want us to use something SMALLER, something EASIER to carry and conceal, something EASIER to carry a whole shitload of ammo for? Is that what you're looking for?



Jesus, I've said 3 times I meant handguns. Do you people read?

I know a lot of guys with AR's. And the first thing they all want to do is convert it to full-auto.

"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."



Sorry, cross-posted with your last response.

Okay, so you're fine with handguns. Okay, then. So I can legally get a 30- or 45-round magazine for my Ruger; is that cool with you, since it's still only a handgun and not an assault weapon?

Seriously, I'm just trying to see how much thought you've put into this issue, or if you're just regurgitating talking points from the left. And hey, I'm a leftist (except when it comes to firearms), so I tend to recognize the talking points...

Personally, I don't see the NEED for 250-mph street-legal cars, but they make 'em and sell 'em (and a guy in Texas even got a 242mph speeding ticket in one!). And I don't see the NEED for 96-inch plasma TVs, 4-core Intel computers, or the 64-ounce Super Big Gulp, but such things exist, legally, whether I like them or not. And some of them kill people. Shouldn't they be outlawed, or at the very least downsized? I'm not saying ban Cokes or anything, but let's put a size limit on them, eh? And if you can't outright ban the automobile, let's put speed limiters on them that won't let them go over 80mph (the highest posted speed limit in the nation), and that will turn you in if you try to go faster than that or try to tamper with the limiter in any way.

Sound fair? Is that the nation we want to be?

Mike

Edited to add:

Quote:


I know a lot of guys with AR's. And the first thing they all want to do is convert it to full-auto.



Then you know a lot of guys who are idiots and who, if they do convert them without the proper tax stamps, Class III licenses and paperwork (which they can't get), are also federal felons. Why aren't you turning them in?

You CAN legally own a fully-automatic machine gun, or even a silenced handgun or sawed-off shotgun in this country, but you have to pony up cash for the right tax stamp and file the appropriate paperwork, and even then you can't MAKE a new machine gun; you can only buy one that already existed prior to 1968. Them's the federal regs, baby. Thank Tricky Dick Nixon for that particular law.

Mike

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

a weapon like that might be more usefull, but so would a tank. Why shouldn't they be street-legal, too?

Cause they chew up the asphalt, causing needless damage to the street.

Wheeled APCs are street legal though, if you have a proper set of lights (headlamps, tail and brake, signals) and your emissions system meets state and local regulations.

Mikey, tell me that's not a Steyr AUG yer drooling over.. *twitch*, always hated them, too much recoil and not so accurate under field conditions.

Hmmm...

Well, if you're unconcerned about the Constitutional Rights of others...

Then do not be surprised if others don't give a rats ass about yours.

Me, I stand up for them even for my enemies, because those rights are UNIVERSAL or they're pointless.

But I can and will be disgusted by cowardly little milquetoast quislings who'll surrender everyone else's without a blink, but scream like a child throwing a tantrum if their own are endangered.

-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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:41 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Storymark, it sounds as though you want to keep handguns, because they are useful in self defense. But you don't care if rifles go away.

You also want to keep shotguns, because you perceive a defense value in them.

But rifles can go away.

Because you don't see the 'need' for rifles.

And you've stated that you're not afraid of these rifles. You just don't care about them, and therefore don't care if they are outlawed.

I misunderstood the difference between us.

I don't play golf, Storymark. I don't see a 'need' for golf.

But I'll be first in line to protest if someone outlaws golf clubs.

When they came for the rifles,
I remained silent;
I was not a rifleman.

When they locked up the swords,
I remained silent;
I was not a swordsman.

When they came for the pornography,
I did not speak out;
I was not a pornographer.

When they came for the arrows,
I remained silent;
I was not an archer.

When they came for my hobby,
No one spoke out for me.

Special thanks to Pastor Martin Niemöller

--Anthony

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

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:47 AM

KWICKO

"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)


Yeah, Frem, it's a Steyr. Haven't fired one, just cradled it lovingly in my arms... :) I was amazed, though, at how easily it came up to a ready position, and how easy it was to sight through that tiny scope keeping both eyes open. Very sweet-feeling, to be sure. Wouldn't pay the money, though, because I think I'd be better served with a clutch of other weapons.

And if I feel the need for a bullpup design, I'll opt for one of the AK bullpups, since I'm already invested in the 7.62x39 caliber...

Quote:


Me, I stand up for them even for my enemies, because those rights are UNIVERSAL or they're pointless.




EGG-ZACH-LEE!! I stand up for the rights of terrorists and child molesters, because the worst of us deserve the same constitutional protections as the best of us. I may despise your actions, but I will not deny you of your rights without due process. And I won't deny your right OF due process, either.

I defend the rights of the worst, because at any moment, on a political whim, you or I could be thrown into that category.

Mike

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:50 AM

KWICKO

"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)


Lest we ever forget...

First They Came...

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

- Martin Neimoller

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:55 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


The reasons have been stated and I've been done trying to change peoples minds for a long while. Like you I am happy with my build and size (I love my 15.5 and 16 Bellevilles). And as cool as they are the .458 SOCCOM, .450 Bushmaster, and .50 Beowulf are too large and impractical for my needs. I'll stick with my .223 because it is light and utilitarian. And I am not a tacticool guy. I just got the AR with an ACOG as a practical utility rifle for a very good price. I actually demo'd the AK for the guy I got my AR from and he loved it. I prefer Soviet calibers (they are pretty awesome) but need to save up for another.

Sorry, back on track. The argument has been made and for some "Assault Weapons" are not for some regardless of how horribly defined they have become. I've demonstrated such weapons to ignorant folk and they were much less intimidated after seeing their actual capacity for destruction rather than what they'd seen on TV or were told in the news.

So real quick, everyone knows not to believe the things they see on TV. Believe what you can see right before your eyes. Quit feeding into media hype until you have seen for yourself the actual effects of such weapons. Look at the definitions provided and question the terms that "authority" has placed on such things.

I hope that anyone looking into the possible re-emergance of an "assault weapon" ban will look objectively at both sides.
20/20


Obama


Chris Rock



I don't completely agree or disagree with all these videos. Just food for thought.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 10:10 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


And again, THEY ARE CRIMINALS and COWARDS. Regardless if "The Man" says they can't have weapons a criminal does not care. I could sit here talking about all the criminals I've known since I was a small child but like many other things, some of y'all just don't care about the truth.

And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.

AK's have been made in Afghanistan and Pakistan for quite some time and they didn't have power tools and machines. When by hand I mean it quite literally in the way primitive man scavanged materials for their tools and weapons.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 10:14 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Hell, I used to make zip guns (or as I called 'em, "bang sticks") when I was 9-10 years old.




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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 10:19 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


And here is another product that will hit the underground and introduce a smaller Black Market into a new era. Sure some people will get caught and go to prison. But like the lillicit drug trade (that includes over the counter and prescription drugs) it will just get bigger, be unregulated, and untaxed.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 10:25 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just some general points before I get back to work:

Cars are used to primarily transport people and things. That people die is incidental. Guns are used to shoot things. That people die is - rather the point. When I can drive a gun, I'll say you have an argument. Otherwise your analogy is fatally flawed.

As to an 'absolute right' to bear arms, I haven't heard anyone saying a baby should be allowed to play with the trigger of a nuclear bomb. It's not an absolute right - there are limits even if they are unacknowledged. The better discussion would be what those limits should be.

Finally, owning a gun isn't going to keep bullets out of your home or car or away from you if you're walking down the street. It's not a magic shield, you know.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 10:50 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


You are right on all accounts. But it is the same with radiation from electronics, fast food, and automobiles. Reckless driving and DUI is not incidental. Over eating is not incidental. Consumer education is not incidental. I think you yourself fail to realize that very point and opt instead to exaggerate your point rather than find true logic in the issue.

Nevermind that cars and stupid drivers kill way more people every year than people. And before someone makes the argument that maybe I have no experience with gun violence I will make this point. Other than the situations where I was willingly in the fray I have lost people here in my rural home to gun violence. I have lost friends and family. I have seen the toll on men, women, and children due to gun violence. No one can tell me the details that I already have seen first hand from such things. I have become numb to a degree in terms of pain and loss. But I never fail to recognize the fact that other people still have accute sensitivity to these things. I am not a middle class white male that has been offered all the (supposed) benefits that demographic recieves. (That whole thing is BS and I actually pity and support the middle class white male)
If there be a true emotional issue to this discussion, let it flow. True feeling is more substantial than errant remarks and misspent anger.
I think ignorance is truer an "Assault Weapon" than the discussion at hand.

Fools spray and pray.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:06 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by nvghostrider:


And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.



That might make a better argument if criminals tended to use assault weapons. But that's not the case.

"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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:34 AM

KWICKO

"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:


Cars are used to primarily transport people and things. That people die is incidental. Guns are used to shoot things. That people die is - rather the point. When I can drive a gun, I'll say you have an argument. Otherwise your analogy is fatally flawed.



Rue, that's pretty weak; I expect more from you.

A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. That people die from them is incidental, and generally criminal in modern society. Guns kill far fewer people every year than automobiles (and don't even get me started on booze and tobacco and their death rates!). And there is no mention whatsoever of the automobile in the Constitution. So while my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, your right to drive may well be, since it's not a right at all.

When I can hunt with my car, I'll accept that you have a right to one. Otherwise, your analogy is fatally flawed.

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:37 AM

KWICKO

"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:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by nvghostrider:


And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.



That might make a better argument if criminals tended to use assault weapons. But that's not the case.

"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."



Well, you haven't made ANY case. Criminals don't tend to use assault weapons, and ACTUAL assault weapons are by and large illegal for 99.9% of U.S. citizens, so *I* tend to not use them, either.

So what is your problem with them in the first place?

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

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:42 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by nvghostrider:


And banning "Assault Weapons" won't stop criminals from having them. Just the everyday person who will need to find alternate ways to defend himself from illicit and home made weapons.



That might make a better argument if criminals tended to use assault weapons. But that's not the case.

"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."



Well, you haven't made ANY case. Criminals don't tend to use assault weapons, and ACTUAL assault weapons are by and large illegal for 99.9% of U.S. citizens, so *I* tend to not use them, either.

So what is your problem with them in the first place?



I don't have one. Christ, reading comprehension is poor in this thread. Never said I had a problem. Said explicitly that I didn't several times.

Okay, for the SLOW: I AM NOT ADVOCATING AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!

Capiche?

Is that clear?

I would not be upset by one, either. But am not advocating one, or trying to justify it. I do have a problem with some gun owners, and their mentality (and reading skills, apparently), but that isn't the same thing. Please, please try to actually read what I wrote, and not just assume you know my position.

"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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:49 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Do you know anything about concealment, target engagement, or what an actual "assault weapon" is?

I've been wondering about the latter.

Just because a person (or criminal) has something it doesn't mean they are going to use it. When I drive to SLC I don't take my AR, just the 1911 (.45) and the Ruger MK11 (.22rimfire). I could care less if an officer asks me if I have weapon. I tell him, "Yes. It is in the back seat in full view with a loaded magazine in it but the chamber is empty." He runs my ID and sends me on my way.
A convicted criminal, especially a convicted felon, does not want to give law enforcement cause to search. Concealable weapons are their go to weapons. When the need arises they do have them. I don't say this in a paranoid or ill informed by the media sort of way. I've seen them.

The problem is some criminals do have actual "Assault Weapons", not the terribly defined sporting arms that American gun owners posess. They have actual weapons capable of firing fully automatic. Even if it turns out we end up turning in our guns, who is to tell them to turn in theirs?

Just because few choose to use them does not mean they don't have them.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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  

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 11:51 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Just remember...

COVER and ALIGHNMENT, AYE, AYE, SIR!....

Runs thru my head everytime I go up to Crooklyn...


anyways....

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
RFK is a sick man
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:58 - 20 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:52 - 5 posts
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL