|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> I propose we define 'assault weapon' /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1356540487 Message started by Greg on 12/26/12 at 08:48:07 |
|
Title: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 08:48:07 With all this talk of banning assault weapons, insane people using assault weapons to kill others, my right to own an assault weapon, etc. I propose that we as a nation define the phrase 'assault weapon'. I know I have asked many people and received just as many definitions. I even had some begin their definition with "well, isn't it...". How can anyone be in favor of banning something when they don't even know what that something is? *edit: And what makes those horrible things in the definition so horrible? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 08:49:23 I will start. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. I guess technically, anything used to assault another person is an assault weapon, but that would include sticks and stones and name calling, so I would rather just say there is no such thing. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/26/12 at 09:27:51 http://cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/AWB.jpg Quote:
I already went over this. Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally). Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine. SO. If I have an AR 15 that comes with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip it's perfectly fine. If I attach a bayonet lug (not even a bayonet, just the lug) it's an assault rifle. If I put a folding stock on it the gun becomes an assault rifle. If I put a folding stock on it but I put a 1/8 roll in the back of it then by definition it now has a "fixed" stock and becomes legal again. I feel safer already. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Serowbot on 12/26/12 at 09:29:34 Pistols and rifles capable of carrying more than 10 rounds... Spray and pray weapons... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 09:36:27 5640574A52474A51250 wrote:
I appreciate your attempt at a definition. I guess I should've added why does the definition make it an assault weapon? Because 11 rounds is deadlier than 10? Because after 10 rounds I press a button and slam another 10 in in under a second? All guns are spray and pray including revolvers as they fire each time the trigger is pulled. If this is the definition the public is using, it is a poor one. No offense. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 09:39:00 59687B68787C687D090 wrote:
No fair. You are using a government definition. Try asking the public the definition and hear all kinds of crazy things. The public wants them banned. They don't know the definition that the government is tossing out there. These are the same people proposing bans on assault dogs. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Serowbot on 12/26/12 at 09:55:28 I disagree,.. that definition works for me... .. and under the right conditions, it is possible to to swap a mag in under a second... but, not in the real world... If you think it is,.. then you'd make an excellent mass murderer... but, if I'm in that room being shot at,.. I'll take that half a second respite, thank you very much... That half a second will have a chair flying at you, or anything in arms reach... and while the chair is flying I'll be charging... "Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd. The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine....Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, ... The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders..." |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/12 at 10:02:49 Pistols and rifles capable of carrying more than 10 rounds... don't most under the barrell tubular magazines on .22s hold more than 10 rounds? Especially .22 shorts. Or are we starting with centerfire vs rim fire? Is there a size caliber where the definition begins? Could a .17 HMR be an assualt rifle if it had a folding stock? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/26/12 at 10:05:18 Anything that even looks like an assault weapon is enough to elicit fear or terror in most people even if such guns are not capable of firing 30 round clips in a fully or semi-auto mode. And how is the causal observer able to tell if such a weapon fires a single shot, or 30 rounds a minute? Everyone knows that true sportsmen do not buy these kinds of weapons to hunt deer or ducks. To want to own such a weapon puts into question the kind of thinking that's going on in such an individuals mind. I don't think most folks want to take away the family deer rifle. Unfortunately, gun cultists are notorious for pushing the envelop on gun laws. If they were truly responsible, and gave a dang about society, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think most gun control advocates are not thinking of the hunting rifles or such that rural folks use as a tool. We are more concerned with the arsenals that some people have with no practical need. And automatics, high capacity clips and hoarding are just concerning. If your guns are registered, kept secure, you are licensed, passed a background check with a mental health section, insured for the potential damage your gun may do, and you are willing to accept responsibility (criminal or otherwise for what your guns do) then that seems like acceptable and responsible gun ownership. Keep your shotguns. Keep your hunting rifles, the assault weapons have got to go. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/12 at 10:21:11 What about the M1? .30-06. My two brothers are in WWII reenactment groups; probably 100 M1's total when they all get together. A standard M1 I think has 5 or 7 rounds. But, they rarely jam and you can swap out a clip in 2 seconds when the empty one pops out. It would not fit the definition of an assault rifle, but there are a lot of dead Nazi's and Japs who'd beg to differ..... We go to spot in Southern Missouri covered with small pilot holes used for lead mining I think. They fill with water and freeze over in the winter. We stand above them and unload two M1’s (plus my .44) into them. The ice flies 50’ in the air and it rains cubes! The noise is shock and awe! Hard to imagine anything inspiring more fear than an M1 firing and that ping with the clip flies out. How do you define ‘fear’ or 'dangerous looking' when assigning something as an assault rifle? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 10:31:50 So according to Star, I can have a gun to hunt but not protect my family. Who will protect them? The police? Not their job. It is my job. In that case, it would be a defensive weapon, not an assault weapon, so is that acceptable? And I surely wouldn't want to fire a high powered deer rifle at an armed intruder and miss. It would go through the wall and potentially kill my neighbor's newborn. But that is acceptable. I just can't have a scary gun that holds enough ammo to defend against a few intruders. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WD on 12/26/12 at 10:49:13 The 30 round, pistol grip folding stock rifle with flash suppressor here works great for the task we give it. Coyote and feral hog removal. Side benefit is the nosy neighbor hasn't come back over since he saw it... ;) My semi auto handgun holds 8+1. Lisa's semi auto handgun holds 8+1. Mine takes forever to change the magazine (leaf spring the lanyard loop is attached to). Her's you push a button and it flies out, new mag heading up while the old one is ejecting. Too bad fmj .380s will skip off the top of a raccoon's head... They are easy to carry. My .22 revolver holds 8. The .38 Long Colt and .44 Special hold 6 easy to swap cartridges. My Ruger .45 holds 6, but is percussion cap fired, proper reload takes 15 minutes with the load I like. .30/30 hold 6 or 7, Lisa's lever gun holds 13-21 rounds. bolt action holds 6+1. Shotguns are 1,2,3 or 5 shot (and the 0ne that holds 3 is rifled slugs). Do the soot burners (muzzle loaders) count? If so there are a total of 4, 2 single shots, one double barrel, one revolver... I don't have any selective fire guns. Permit process costs too much. I did used to own a fully functionally M14 though. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/12 at 10:53:42 Greg; You’ve hit the nail on the head with the most valid point of all when it comes to assault weapons. It is first and foremost, my job to protect my family in the manner I see fit based upon the circumstances I find myself in; no one else’s responsibility. To hand this responsibility over to the government goes to the heart of my problem with the feminization of America. I don't want people who think the way Star and Sew do to decide what's best for me and those I'm responsible for. David Gregory of Meet the Press can pregnant dog and moan about gun control at schools all he wants but his kids go to the same school and the President's kids do. He has no security fears. This is the same as Rosie O’Donnell a few years ago on gun control when it was later revealed her bodyguard was armed. Liberals always have a double standard in place. I currently do not own one of these ‘assault’ weapons (which is about to change…), but I live in a fairly secure area and never felt the need for one. If I lived south 100 miles in the meth capital of the US, I’d have already bought one. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/26/12 at 11:11:39 102225343322350A26352C470 wrote:
Those are not detachable and therefore not evil. Enact a 10 round maximum capacity. How many 10 round magazines can I have? I posted a video of some marines having a speed reloading contest. They are probably faster than I am but I am faster than the next guy. What did you solve? http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/Magpul%207/STCK3084-A-1200-Stick.jpg IF this stock was pinned open this gun would be legal. http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/Magpul%207/STCK3085-A-1200-Stick.jpg IF this stock was pinned closed it would be legal. But because you can open or close it at your leisure it is now an assault rifle. Makes sense, right? Edit: Sorry abotu the pictures. They were like 4x6 on my screen but when I posted them they became wall paper sized. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Serowbot on 12/26/12 at 11:17:23 You can single out Rosie and David if you want... but,... "Liberals always have a double standard in place."... Singling out a couple of examples, and then making the blanket statement that "Liberals always..." is BS... I don't,.. and Star don't... ... and this is a BS thread... Proposing that we define "assault weapon", and then stating that there's no such a thing... is automatically rejecting any answer before it's brought up... Any definition based on the looks of a weapon, or on any additional functions besides firing power will just be worked around by manufacturers... A simple, specific, definition is needed... and a maximum 10 round mag capacity will work for 99%... I don't care how fast a reload can happen... and,.. if it's so simple, why complain?... If anyone needs more than 10 rounds for home defense,. they need to rethink they're ability to use a gun for defensive purposes... Spraying that kind of lead in a home, or public place makes you as dangerous as the threat... I'm done with this argument... no one is expecting or accepting a serious discussion here anyway... Only denial of realities... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 11:29:26 Serow, I can understand bowing out when you can't win. I guess another question I have for those who are willing to explain their viewpoint would be why is 10 the magic number? Why didn't we pick 9 or 11 or 2 or 17 rounds? What is so special about the number 10? Tons of research I'm sure. No, just people pulling crap out their butts as usual. What if it isn't a detachable magazine as others suggested? Why do the people who don't allow me to protect my family insist on allowing a woman to kill her unborn child? And they are the same people who say that I should take someone else's money because he doesn't need it. I am beginning to see a correlation here. Sorry to get off topic, but sometimes we need to look at the bigger picture. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/12 at 11:35:46 Singling out a couple of examples, and then making the blanket statement that "Liberals always..." is BS... I don't,.. and Star don't... Murder by firearms is down in recent years. Mass shootings are up. Singling out 4 or 5 of these mass shootings as a reason for gun control is BS…. I'm done with this argument... no one is expecting or accepting a serious discussion here anyway... Only denial of realities... You’re done with this discussion BECAUSE of realities. As Col. Jessup might say; you can't handle the truth. Bottom line: i don't want you or Star deciding this issue. Unfortunately, you're right; obama won and your people get to be the ones to lead on this issue. Just like the last time when laws were passed and nothing changed. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/26/12 at 11:47:21 "It is first and foremost, my job to protect my family in the manner I see fit based upon the circumstances I find myself in." Yeah, you never know when a horde of barbarians might come down from the north with catapults and pots of boiling oil...yup, you will need all the firepower you can muster in case that happens.....gotta' guard the old homestead doncha' know,, yes sir indeedy do. I'm with Sero, this is a bullsh!t post where the gun-nuts can brag about needing more and more firepower to bolster their manhood...sheech. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/12 at 12:06:49 Yeah, you never know when a horde of barbarians might come down from the north with catapults and pots of boiling oil...yup, you will need all the firepower you can muster in case that happens.....gotta' guard the old homestead doncha' know,, yes sir indeedy do. point is, it's my job to determine that, not yours. bug out. It's clear you're perfectly comfortable with womanizing yourself, so go ahead, i'm not stopping you. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/26/12 at 12:35:50 "womanizing yourself" My, what a big hairy chested man's man you must be..do you beat your hairy chest and roar every time you see a 'girly' man? I'll bet testosterone just flows through your veins like a mighty river...of course you need guns, big guns, the kind you like to oil and feel as your loins tingle. ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Serowbot on 12/26/12 at 12:47:59 4F4A4D46414B280 wrote:
;D ;D ;D... Can't win?.. Of course not,.. you've previously stated, that you will accept no answer as plausible... You are being ridiculous.. 10 +1 is a common capacity... Ruger 22, for instance... Many others are 7 or 8... I believe 10 +1 is maximum for any standard straight clip... The staggered clip guns are considered "high capacity"... as the intention of staggering rounds is to create a higher capacity... They are,.. by manufacturer's definition, "high capacity"... A high capacity gun is made for assault purposes... They were originally designed for military, SWAT, SAS,... Deny reality all you want,.. but there are assault weapons,.. they are high capacity,.. and political climate requires a definition... You can go along with the NRA's standard denial of reality,... or be serious... Your choice... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 13:04:21 5147504D55404D56220 wrote:
;D ;D ;D... Can't win?.. Of course not,.. you've previously stated, that you will accept no answer as plausible... You are being ridiculous.. 10 +1 is a common capacity... Ruger 22, for instance... Many others are 7 or 8... I believe 10 +1 is maximum for any standard straight clip... The staggered clip guns are considered "high capacity"... as the intention of staggering rounds is to create a higher capacity... They are,.. by manufacturer's definition, "high capacity"... A high capacity gun is made for assault purposes... They were originally designed for military, SWAT, SAS,... Deny reality all you want,.. but there are assault weapons,.. they are high capacity,.. and political climate requires a definition... You can go along with the NRA's standard denial of reality,... or be serious... Your choice... [/quote] I did not state that I will accept no definition. I gave my opinion of a definition and requested others. And no, 10 is not standard. I have 12 round and 15 round single stack mags. High capacity is NOT made for assault purposes. It is made to hold more ammo. But I suppose people like you won't acknowledge self defense as anything but assault. And the military actually used single stack .45, not the double stack. *edit: And my buddy had a 30 round single stack for his 9mm. Looked retarded sticking way out of the bottom, but it was single stack. So I guess those should be legal, right? *edit 2: My 15 is staggered. I forgot the manufacturer put a spacer on the bottom to make them 10 round. 15 was the standard. They didn't do it to get a 'high capacity' mag, it is just the way it was designed. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/26/12 at 13:06:25 There absolutely must NOT be any regulation on assault weapons... But there absolutely MUST be regulations on a woman's uterus...is this a great country or what? :D |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/26/12 at 13:09:34 4B6C796A74717E6C7D6A180 wrote:
Nope. No regulations on a woman's uterus. Just a regulation against murdering the unborn child. She can rip the sh!t out of her uterus if she wants to, just not to kill an innocent human being. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/26/12 at 14:16:31 I think we should blame the victim and tell them they should have had guns and have been quicker than the killer ... Like give all the kids a gun, so when someone starts stooting, they will shoot them first. I dunno, impossible to get gun nuts to see sense ... actually they do see sense in that argument. So we might as well implement it. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/12 at 14:43:04 My, what a big hairy chested man's man you must be nope; not at all. I'm just not a wussy like you. Just because you like to be bottled fed doesn't mean every man does. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Serowbot on 12/26/12 at 15:33:04 5E6C6B7A7D6C7B44687B62090 wrote:
605255444352457A56455C370 wrote:
Web,.. I don't know what your problem is,... some childhood trauma, a tiny pen!s, bottle fed, or what... .. but a gun won't make you a man... neither will denying help to the poor,.. and neither will name calling like a schoolboy... So, be a man, own yer' own testicles, and stay out of mine... No one here thinks better of you for this childishness... Haven't you noticed, Web?... not even the members on your side behave like you... Look at Greg, WD, Jerry,... I disagree with them,.. they disagree with me,.. never stooping to childish taunts... Act like a grown up... you embarrass yourself... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/26/12 at 16:26:26 10 is the magic number because people are stupid. The whole reason we have a base ten monetary system is from peasants and farmers conducting trades. These feeble minded folk could only pair up the items they bartered with the fingers on their hands. As far as slinging lead around... my shot gun is loaded with (in order exiting the barrel) rubber pellets, rubber buckshot, solid rubber slugs, and finishes with two rounds of 00 buck. Just because someone breaks into my house shouldn't mean I have to redo drywall. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WD on 12/26/12 at 16:57:41 High cap magazines (like dried food) meant less resupply for alpine/airborne troops. Folding stocks and collapsible stocks took up less room in the transports. The modern "assault rifle" was developed by the German Army during WW2 for practical reasons. Certainly not for aesthetics or shooting stability. A factory wooden stock box magazine SKS is a thing of proportional/functional beauty. Give it a plastic stock and modify it to accept 30-200 round AK magazines... not so much. It's kinda like letting Picasso paint over a Rembrandt... I like my little battlefield pick up CZ made in 1936. It's like a Savage, small, underpowered, overlooked by the "trim and trappings" people... and gets the job done that I need it to do. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/12 at 20:05:15 but a gun won't make you a man... neither will denying help to the poor,.. agree; never said it would. Never said denying help to the poor either; where did I say that??? I'll give you a million dollars if you find where I said I don't care if the poor starve and die, doesn't affect me. How do you know what I do for the poor? You really don't know, do you? So, be a man, own yer' own testicles, and stay out of mine... Frankly, you're the one getting into mine. You're the one reaching into my pocket and giving it to the ones YOU deam worthy. I don't get to make that decision. you're the one telling me i can't own a certain kind of gun because you say i don't NEED it. I don't think I've told you you can't do anyting except kill an unborn baby. Other than that, I don't care what you do. I might be against it, I will scream from the roof tops, but i'm not stopping you. not even the members on your side behave like you... I go after you and Star because you represent everything that is slowly rotting this country out from the inside. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Retread on 12/26/12 at 20:32:16 I used to think I didn't care if you owned a 105 Howitzer, as long as you were proficient with it and had the proper training.. I am slowly begining to think this nation has gone nuts. I know plenty out there who would differ in opinion with me, but most of America is not qualified or of sound mental health to handle a weapon. Many are proving it by rushing out and buying more weaponery in light of the latest tragedy's.. An assault weapon is any weapon carrying over 15 rounds, capable of semi-auto or full auto fire, used in a military capacity.. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by houstonbofh on 12/26/12 at 22:08:41 75425355424643270 wrote:
While you may have a point, gun laws will not disarm those people. Most of the shooting tragedies that drive this insanity were committed by people who could not legally own the guns they used. And they sure were not legal where they used them. What I am afraid of is what happened with speed limits. A long time ago, speed limits were set by the 80 percentile method. The limit was what 80 percent of the people would drive under. This was rational, and most people obeyed the speed limit. Then we got the "55" which most people found irrational, and summarily ignored. This happens with all laws most people feel are unjust... Speed limits... Smoking weed... Paying sales taxes on mail order... Music and video downloads... I could see some gun laws falling into this category too. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by v-pilot on 12/26/12 at 22:43:02 All of my firearms are stored in a locked safe without ammo, that's kept in another locked safe. They are bolted to the framing inside a closet out of sight. The +1 is never a safe place to carry that extra round, I never ever carry one in the pipe. To me that's just common sense. I am licensed to carry concealed but for the most part do not. That's just a HUGE responsibility that I am rarely up to. My assault weapons, as some would define them(semi automatic pistols) are used for competetative league shooting. My long guns are high power, high velocity, setup for long range, 500 yds and further. Hitting a 6" circle is pretty easy. Hold your hands with your middle fingers and thumbs touching and hold that circle up to your face... I prefer to hunt with my Bow. Should I have to give up 2 of my 3 favorite hobbies because some think guns kill people? People kill people! Be it with a gun or a knife or a hammer or what have you. BTW my other favorite is riding. Will bikes be outlawed also because they are dangerous too? We loose our brothers and sisters every day on them, some on their own account, some on the account of others. I have good control of my guns and my bikes. As far as the military styled rifles go, I don't see much use for them, but that's just me. I thought I might want one once, but then I tried one. Sure it was fun, but it wasn't what I'm into, just wasn't my thing. I shoot all my guns and ride all my bikes responsibly thank you very much. Should my liberties be restricted, or worse by the irresponsible or unworthy? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 12/27/12 at 02:02:24 Unless you were in the military none of you have ever seen or held an assault weapon. An assault weapon looks like the fake ones the gun manufacturers are flooding the market with but a real military assault weapon has a lever on the side of it. In the 1rst position if fires single shot, 2nd position 3 shot burst,3rd position its fully automatic. Thats a real assault weapon like the miltary and swat teams carry. A Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle doesnt look menacing because it has a wooden stock but its twice the gun these plastic stock wannabe assault guns are. Its a lot more accurate and odds are it will never jam. I could walk down the street with it and no one would be intimidated but I consider it one of the most deadliest capable weapons available. Back to the subject, the US Military and major Law enforcement Agencys do not consider dressed up cheap action semi automatic rifles assault weapns. Real Assault weapons are fully automatc. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/27/12 at 04:49:28 56727F75727C736F69727F7E691B0 wrote:
If I had to choose a definition, this would be it. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/27/12 at 06:07:15 Before anyone goes further, i'd read the article below. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/27/12 at 06:19:00 2C08050F080609151308050413610 wrote:
Actually my father is a class 3 dealer and we just submitted my paperwork to my CLEO in order to transfer his AR to me. According to the BATFE I could inherit it but he wanted to see me enjoy it while he's still alive. Full transferable NFA weapon. Collapsible stock, bayonet lug, safe-semi-auto. He had to add the burst kit to it. Not my first rodeo, either. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by 12Bravo on 12/27/12 at 07:16:35 1A3D283B25202F3D2C3B490 wrote:
I own and hunt with an AR15 for numerous reasons. Mine is a semi-auto rifle that functions just like any other semi-auto, 1 shot for 1 pull of the trigger. I own my AR because I wanted to have a rifle similar (yet legal) to what I carried in the Army, I also have a 1911A1 for the same reason. I hunt with my AR due to breaking my wrist in a motorcycle accident and can no longer grip a "hunting" stock. Wanting to ban rifles and pistols based solely on looks is wrong. The 2nd Amendment isn't just for hunting. The true definition (not some politicians def.) is a weapon capable of both semi-auto AND burst/full-auto fire AND shoots an intermediate caliber round (5.56x45/5.45x39/7.62x39/7mm Kursk) I guess we should ban automobiles next because they cause people to drive drunk. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WD on 12/27/12 at 07:16:57 I had a real M14. Sold it when it got too expensive to play with it at the range. We still have the paperwork on the farm for a WW2 Arisaka light machine gun (gun is long gone) and for an A.O.W. (all other weapons) pistol grip .410 with a 14" barrel. TN is easy, if you pass the federal checks and get your paperwork from the ATF, you can have it. From our farm utility gun (the .410) to a working tank. Want a silencer, get your federal permit. Want a belt fed light crew served, get your federal permit. Dig up a War of Northern Aggression field piece (cannon) and want to keep it? You can, and you don't need any permits (too expensive to play with, one shot costs around $50)... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 07:50:50 4F7D7A6B6C7D6A55796A73180 wrote:
Gee, the WSJ is pro gun ... imagine that ... Now I think we should just wait for Rush "I'm filling my gun with bullets and my nose with cocaine which I say my house keeper sold me saying it was just headache powder" Lamebaugh to put his opinion and we should be all set. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/12 at 07:54:27 Assault weapon? Who cares? I have a right to own ANY weapon, yes, tank, missile, whatever anyone mite use against me in a war, is it practical? No, Im not gonna own a tank. I couldnt pay to maintain a missile or atom bomb, the thing is the Principle. To pretend its okay to make something illegal because its so impractical is ridiculous thinking, |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/27/12 at 08:13:51 786761667B7C4D7D4D75676B20120 wrote:
EXACTLY! |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/27/12 at 08:15:31 20213A3D32273B530 wrote:
Yet we are to believe the liberal anti-gun news agencies. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/27/12 at 09:29:53 7C7F0F3F2C3B224D0 wrote:
...and spoons for making me fat. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Serowbot on 12/27/12 at 10:40:51 Of the 23 wealthiest countries,... U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. America's gun ownership rate is the highest in the world... tribal-war-torn Yemen is second, with a rate about half of America's. No. 1 in the world for the number of guns among the citizenry, beating Yemen by a wide margin and double that of Switzerland where every young man serves in the army and keeps his weapon at home. 300,000,000 guns... There are 7 million teachers in the US... 307,000,000 guns... There,...that'll fix it... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 12/27/12 at 10:44:24 See this entire post proves the initial question. Society can not even define what an assault wheapon is...how are they going to ban them? You do not solve the problem of evil in society by prevnting people the right to defend themselves from the evil. ( in a matter that best suits them ). England banned guns. The murder rate did not go down but the method people use to kill have become much more brutal. I think it was in New York where recently the Anti-gun reporter released the names of all those in town which were registered gun owners (this was suppose to hurt gun owners?) I wish someone local would do that so the criminals would know not to come to my house. If I was a criminal I would want to have that info. Sorry, I know this will stir up more debate but I do not understand why we put our children in a place where the bad guys know they will not be defended. WE need to defend our children! I have several police officer friends and they all tell me the same thing. Get a gun, we won't be there until it is over. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/27/12 at 11:07:47 7660776A72676A71050 wrote:
I'd be curious to see how many of those murders are from documented citizens or are the crimes merely occurring here? Like that other guy said about Kennasomething. The crimes aren't commited in Kennasomething, they are around Kennasomething. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 12:09:50 6C724948514D4458210 wrote:
I am not talking about getitng rid of guns. Heck I may even be putting more guns on the street. This is the basic idea. Guns that wont fire unless in the authorised users hand. Fingerprint id based trigger lock. Guns that use bullets different from all the ones that are in circulation. Say a 11.5mm or a 8mm some like that. Bullets and guns that will require a background check to buy - You are a law abiding citizen you wont have any issues. You want that dont you ? The current open guns will be traded for a similar finger print based one in the same type. I mean a glock will be traded straight across for a glock that uses an 8mm bullet and wont fire unless its in your hand. Heck, fire the glock till you dont have bullets for it anymore, then swap it for a similar fingerprint based one. That should in short order (few months if you want to be optimistic) get rid of all the Adam Lanza's gun packing momma's guns that could have been comandeered by him. It also does not touch the home invasion protection idea 1 bit. So the open fire guns that do exist out there now, will be left bulletless unless you make their bullets. That should in short order do everything guns do now, and do nothing they are not supposed to. Oh yea, the fingerprint ID mechanism may fail, I agree, however in a home invasion situation, you would 99% of the time, not fire it. A non ID gun can jam too, so that makes for nothing better than now. Cops dont want a gun that has any extra failure possibility. I'd say, cops, soldiers etc can use the open fire guns. There the gun does get shot. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Ed L. on 12/27/12 at 12:51:06 srinath, there are just too many ways around bullet or casing restrictions. There are billions of pieces of brass out in circulation right now for each caiber handgun all which can be reloaded multiple times. It would take a hundred years to use up all the advailable brass that is out there. Even if all ammo manufacturing was discontinued today there would be a huge black market started overnight. I don't have any answers, fingerprint triggers would help but then the gun would need to be redesigned to prevent easy access and removal of the trigger. I can't see the gun industry making the change, it would need to be international, not just one or two countries. Some states already have ID required for handgun ammo purchases, maybe something on the Federal level would work but it sure would throw gas on the gun owner arguments. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 12/27/12 at 13:32:00 srinath, I certainly dont have an answer to the issue. I would throw a list of problems I see with your view. I have several guns, why, for the same reasons I have several bikes. I like them they are fun. And like big bikes big guns offer a certain level of interest along with the danger. I dont want to trade mine in and get several of the same guns. Personally I like my shotgun for home defense. (if people saw it they would be scared). But that doesn't make it any more dangerous than any other gun. Who would pay for all these guns that are getting turned in and I still dont think a felon is going to take his illegal gun down and turn it in and he's the guy I am worried about. These mass killings are a social phenomina that I don't think you can legislate away. One of the issues is our culture, we just want to pass some law so we feel as if we have accomplished something so we can go home and isolate ourselves in our little safe worlds and forget about it. We attack the obvious "assault weapons" but they are not typically the weapon of choice for these people. The breakdown of families, moral values, the value of life has just become so cheap in our country. When HS students were polled for what they wanted to be when they grow up the number one answer was "famous" and it seems that each of these people are trying to out do the other so that they feel special somehow. I am not aginst reasonable gun control. I just dont think passing more laws will help anything. How many laws did this guy break. I dont think he cared. What if instead he caried 5 molotov coctails in the room, would that somehow be better. PS, Ed, I love the forward controls........... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/27/12 at 14:01:23 18063D3C2539302C550 wrote:
EXACTLY! |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 12/27/12 at 15:39:56 Anybody in this country can buy the ingredients and assemble a pipe bomb that that would destroy 2 or 3 classrooms. Mental health, drugs and pedophiles are the cause. Oulawing a gun with a plastic stock and a pistol grip isnt going to solve anything. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 15:59:30 06222F25222C233F39222F2E394B0 wrote:
So they will walk into a school carrying this bomb, then I guess set it up, click the timer and walk out ? Would it be quicker to light a fuse, so you know you have 30 sec to walk out ? Or is a timer better ? So as soon as that happens - and no Timothy McVeigh does not count, he was a well trained and motivated terrorist, so a local lunatic needs to bring in a bomb and set it off, so then we can worry about banning a fertiliser sale to a guy with a criminal or psychotic profile. OK, till then we stay with guns as the target. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 16:06:36 595C5B50575D3E0 wrote:
EXACTLY![/quote] A first step will be to stop mentioning the killers names. They should know they will die in ignominy and anonymity. I would actually not even bury them. They get cremated, and the state will hold onto their ashes for 75 years in a ziploc baggie with a number on it. The second step, yes I understand its a psychologic issue, but correcting that will take a lot of expense and time - years and years. Gun control imposed world wide (thanks ed. l) and yea good luck getting russkies to go along, there is 30 million AK 47's running around apparently mostly in asia and africa ... anyway, AK47's on us soil have been extremely rare, anyway people are not going to spray 300 bullets into a crowd of no body's when they had to make each of those, and get this, how many people will a psychotic loner have to get in touch with to make 300 bullets without the govt finding out. Right now, he can walk into walmart and buy it. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by houstonbofh on 12/27/12 at 16:38:54 2A3C2B362E3B362D590 wrote:
1) The Swiss have a 100% gun ownership rate among adults born there. The US is about 40%... 2) In the two industrialized nations where guns were banned, gun violence went up, and not by a little. 3) The cities in the US with the highs murder rate have the strictest gun control laws. 4) Mexico has strict gun control laws. I dare you to go to any boarder town and then tell me it is safe. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 12/27/12 at 16:50:57 [quote][A first step will be to stop mentioning the killers names. They should know they will die in ignominy and anonymity. I would actually not even bury them. They get cremated, and the state will hold onto their ashes for 75 years in a ziploc baggie with a number on it. /quote] I agree with you 100% here. We have to take the fame out of it. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/27/12 at 16:51:49 3F3E25222D38244C0 wrote:
I agree we should stop glamorizing the murders. If I understand the second quote correctly, you would rather force the entire planet to disarm instead of correcting the problem because it is too costly? WTF? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 17:06:42 2A3C2B362E3B362D590 wrote:
1. The swiss have a close to 45% gun ownership rate, cos its only men who own guns after being released from service. The US OTOH has closer to 50%, cos there are a good many non citizens who own guns. Since a non citizen can go on a killing spree like the VA tech guy, its perfectly valid to count that in ... OK Its not 50%, but its a bit higher than 40% 2. Gun violence went up immediately after ... gun controls dont have an immediate effect, and they dont work if you have porus borders, and the one country that has enacted strict laws, and have secure borders - australia has seen a huge drop in gun crime. However US borders are far from as secure as australia. cant beat 1000 miles of ocean under any circumstances with a line in the sand. 3. The cities with the strictest gun laws also have the hugest black market in guns, NYC for example, a huge number of guns in NY are black market guns brought in from SC or GA - I know, cos I live next door to SC, and I know people who take cigarettes and guns to NY cos they can sell em for 10X more. More porus borders @ work there. 4. Mexico - nice you pointed out the Border towns ? That is american guns bought in the US in the hands of drug lords. AKA criminals killing other criminals as well as cops and citizens who get in their way with US sold guns, to control drug smuggling routes to the US. Nice, get the people/cops out of the way and really I dont see a downside. let the lowlifes kill each other ... we are fine with that. You been to other parts of mexico ? non border towns ? Yea, I have - pretty pleasant, if you like West texas. Cherry picking information to support gun ownership - so done, 150 years of the NRA man. You remember there was this fool who was selling some sheiete on TV about how 1 stock has gone up on this date 30 of the last 40 years and this other one went up 15 of the last 17 and this and that. Yea BS, it all needs to be same time frame ... not 12 here, 25 there, 9 there and 50 in another ... Seriously, its gonna take decades, and then 10 years later we need to remember the events that caused us to take these actions, we could easily slide back, man we banned all this, and did all this Rf-ID bs and spend billions on psych tests for people and look, nothing is happening and reverse course. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 12/27/12 at 17:41:38 57564D4A45504C240 wrote:
So they will walk into a school carrying this bomb, then I guess set it up, click the timer and walk out ? Would it be quicker to light a fuse, so you know you have 30 sec to walk out ? Or is a timer better ? So as soon as that happens - and no Timothy McVeigh does not count, he was a well trained and motivated terrorist, so a local lunatic needs to bring in a bomb and set it off, so then we can worry about banning a fertiliser sale to a guy with a criminal or psychotic profile. OK, till then we stay with guns as the target. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] You have to sign a form if you buy x amount of amonium nitrate (fertilizer) here in NC. Cant remember the exact poundage. I dont know if you have to pass a background check or not but you do have to sign for it unless they've changed the law. That was set up here in NC after the McVeigh bombing. Built my first pipe bomb when I was 12 or 13 yrs old, but I didnt blow anyone up with it, just a kid having fun. All the laws in the world are not gonna prevent evil. If you want your children to be law abiding citizens you teach and set a proper example when they're young. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/27/12 at 18:58:22 4D4C57505F4A563E0 wrote:
I don't know. Someone walked into a gun with two pistols that was later transformed into an AR. A pipe bomb could be made about the size of a soda can. You have to give Sears or Lowes or whomever a copy of your CT driver's license here to get fertilizer. I get where you want to go with your oddball caliber change but there is too much out there for reloading supplies. Also HOW DARE YOU! Why should I have to bend my will? Why should I have to change my ways because YOU are afraid? Why will YOUR decision affect ME and make ME change what I've done for years just to accomodate YOUR needs? This psycho made a decision that now affects hundreds of people. I could argue that the decision YOU want to make ALSO affects hundreds of people now making you no better than him. (Nothing against you personally. Really and honestly... but when I ran through it in my head and went over all the places I wanted to add emphasis I felt it needed a personal touch. I enjoy the friendly debate we're having here with everyone.) --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/27/12 at 19:49:26 Really? You think you have a right to own ANY weapon? Missiles? Atomic bombs?....uh huh, and just who or what gave you this right? The NRA talking points you gun fanatics continue to parrot over and over ad-nauseam (more guns mean less crime - only outlaws will have guns - the 2nd amendment - ban hammers - ban cars - ban baseballs bats bla bla bla.) Any rationalization to have guns guns and more guns. This society is SICK! and normal people are SICK of these Goddam*ed gun-nuts howling their screed about guns and gun rights. Your answer to every issue is more guns more guns....yeah, more guns to stop gun violence is like calling for more cars to stop traffic jams....scheech. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 12/27/12 at 20:21:29 I dont see the big deal about putting an armed LEO at elementary schools. They have them at middle and high schools. How about the Marshalls on airliners, are those people flying more important than our young children. There's too many guns already out there that are easily available. The war on guns is gonna be about as effective as the war on drugs. I dont have a so called assault rifle, really dont want one but outlawing them is not going to stop the violence. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 20:23:22 Get a gun to protect your self if you want ... just make sure when you're careless it doesn't end up killing others - just like the last few Idiots did. The only way to Idiot proof it, rf-id or fingerprint trigger locks, for you its a real gun ... if its stolen form you, its a paperweight. Sadly I cant think of getting the cat back in the bag after 150 years of cat-proliferation. And star is right, the 1000's of returned guns is proof of that. And sadly, some of those people may have had use of one of those guns. Only way to correct it, hand em a gun, read their finger print, scan into a database, connect the gun to the device and burn in the code. Done. In his/her hand its a gun. Outside his hand, paperweight. If you dont want to change sheite about "your gun ownership right" watch it get eaten away. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/12 at 20:56:07 Unless the masses grasp WHY its our right, its not gonna last. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/27/12 at 20:59:49 http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c35.0.403.403/p403x403/27312_324734904307250_1873390119_n.jpg http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Obama-guns.jpg http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003405419/2733433631_AllFavorGunControl_obama_closeup_xlarge.jpeg --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 12/27/12 at 21:26:21 srinath I've never heard of a fingerprint lock. If its electronic there's thousands of 16 year olds out there that can bypass it. What if I wanna teach my grandson to shoot when he's 16, or my wife wants to learn how to shoot? You can pass all the laws you want to, you're never gonna stop people from killing each other. This country has been at war practically my whole lifetime and none of the wars were justifiable. Our goverment has slaughtered millions of innocent children and civilians. No law is gonna prevent sick and evil individuals from killing. Outlaw so called assault weapons. Someone can walk into a school with two automatic pistols and kill just as many as someone with a so called assault rifle. Things have gone to far, society is collapsing. We need a well trained armed LEO at all our schools. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by houstonbofh on 12/27/12 at 22:42:18 24253E3936233F570 wrote:
Your data is again wrong. Quick google search proves it... Quote:
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=24760 As for the non-citizens owning guns, it is darn hard. That is why I own the guns Aida possesses. She can get a CHL but buying a handgun is hard... 24253E3936233F570 wrote:
Setting yourself up for the failure to come? 24253E3936233F570 wrote:
That is the entire point. They will get them anyway, just like they do other places... Like... 24253E3936233F570 wrote:
Contrary to your fantasy, fully automatic weapons are not for sale in gun shops in Texas. And they have those. I used to go to Reynosa all the time, but no more. 24253E3936233F570 wrote:
Pot, have you met Kettle? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by mpescatori on 12/28/12 at 01:06:27 Request permission to chip in my own two cents. This discussion started with "How do you define an assault weapon?" I'd like to take the discussion back to the beginning, because I feel it has been slowly steered away from it. An "assault weapon" is a military issue firearm, generally a carbine or rifle, capable of (currently) both automatic or selective automatic fire (i.e. 3-shot bursts) and a magazine of suitable capacity. Amen. Definiition given through 33 years of active military service. Some assault weapons can be of handgun size/origin, such as the fully automatic Beretta 93R or the MAC/Ingram. Others, such as 7.62/.50cal sniper rifles cannot fit in this category because sniping is in itself NOT an assault discipline, quite the opposite. Perhaps we should discuss if the lawmakers should define an "assalut-style weapon" and ban that category. What would be an "assault-style weapon"? Typically, a "rifle or carbine, derived from a military issue assault weapon, capable of semiautomatic fire with the same or balistically similar ammunition, and capable of using the same accessories". (Definition used by European lawmakers) For example, the Colt AR-15 derives from the Colt M-16. For example, the civilian version of the AK-47 / 74. But not, by the same token, a "riot style shotgun" if the same receiver/breech/magazine are available in the same caliber with a wood stock for hunting. In other words, appearance alone cannot define an assault-style weapon, but the possibility of using it in a military-style fashion does. Looking at the definition, one also realizes that many assault weapon derivatives do not fall in the "assault style weapon" category because they derive from weapons which are today obsolete as assault weapons. From the Wincherter .30cal carbine we have the Ruger Mini-14 and the 10/22. Nobody in his right mind would today define the Winchester .30cal carbine as an assault weapon, times have changed, so the derivatives have changed category as well. But in the 1950s a Mini-14 could well have been considered "assault style". The same applies to a Garand M1 in 30.06 and .308. By "assault style" definition, an AR-15 could well be banned, as well as a Beretta BM59, or an AK47/74. I personally see no problem with that. As for those who want to shoot at coyotes or feral hogs... Wild boar is considered a delicacy in Europe, think about it. At what ranges do you shoot your "assault weapons" for coyote control (target practice?) How farther will the bullet fly when you miss? Can you see that far? Is anyone willing to go on trial for manslaughter when a passer-by is killed at 1000 yards behind the bushes because you missed that coyote at 300 yards? ::) |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/28/12 at 04:33:21 2F3227312123362D302B420 wrote:
Using this definition, assault weapons are already banned and/or heavily regulated. I was always taught to know what is beyond your target. If it isn't safe to shoot, you don't shoot. Pretty simple. Plus, shooting at a coyote and missing will have a limited travel as you will be pointing the muzzle down not up. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/28/12 at 05:32:38 Houstonhofh - wrong on many counts. Swiss military service is compulsory for men. Your 1050 women in the military is a rather recent phenomenon, and 1050 is nothing compared to 1+ million. Conscription 19–34 years of age obligatorily 36 for subaltern officers, 52 for staff officers and higher Available for military service 1,852,580 males, age 16–49 (2009 est.), 1,807,667 females, age 16–49 (2009 est.) Australia - look it up. They banned and really restricted guns, and crime went down over the decades following it. Assault weapons may not be in northern mexico from just texas, you do know they have roads to the other parts of the country from texas right ? Once again you picked northern mexico, not southern mexico, the reason for the violence is the fact that drug routes go through north mexico to the US, duh. I am really not cherry picking information, but you have 150 years of information that I am pointing out could be proved wrong, if we change the assumptions that it is underpinned on. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/28/12 at 05:41:09 61454842454B44585E4548495E2C0 wrote:
RF-ID tagged is available and has been for 20 years. That can be worn in a bracelet or in your pocket, but unless its implanted in your body it wont be as effective. It is supposedly fail proof. Fingerprint ID is experimental, but I figure it will be out soon. They are also not easy to bypass. Lots of things are rf-id tagged. BTW lojack has been around for decades, its near impossible to bypass it. Not everything will be bypassed. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/28/12 at 05:45:46 74505D57505E514D4B505D5C4B390 wrote:
Correct, and @ malls, and theaters, and everywhere else, and the people who are croweing about big gubbamint spending, who are the same fools crowing about needing guns for the last 150 years need to shut up, and better yet, the gun sales and ammo sales need to be taxed and that should be used to pay for it. Sort of like the tobacco tax used to pay for anti smoking ads. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 12/28/12 at 06:17:52 Like I said before, quite sarcastically. Raise the costs and taxes universally. Pay to play! I don't see this set up ever being abused. Raise the costs so high no one can afford guns. Raise the cost of gasoline so no one can drive, raise the cost of food so no one can eat. (I do believe this is already in effect because healthy foods are super expensive but a McDonalds burger is 99 cents) Where does it end? "Suitable capacity". Define suitable. My suitable and your suitable obvious differ if we're having this discussion. Why is a 30 round magazine considered high capacity? I have a 100 round drum for both my AR and AK. My cousin has a belt fed 1919. How long of a belt is suitable? An AR15 clone in .22 with a folding stock, detachable mag and pistol grip is an assault weapon. But a bolt action .50 caliber with armor piercing rounds is not. Makes perfect sense. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/28/12 at 06:37:27 19283B28383C283D490 wrote:
You need to get as long a belt as you need to to make the person who is going to use that gun on a killing rampage needs. That is what its there for. See, sarcasm works from this side too. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Ed L. on 12/28/12 at 07:01:25 And it is possible to reload a military issue bolt action rifle with a 5 round stripper clip in under 5 seconds after a little pratice. I've tried it with a 7.7 Arisaka just for argument's sake. Not quite as effective for fire power volumn as an assualt style rifle but it is a much more powerful round than the smaller calibers commonly found as semiauto "Black" rifles. Point being is that rapid loading is possible for most firearms, not just assault rifles. A RF-ID system implanted in the owners body is way too close to the tatoo ID system found in the concentration camps during WW2. I can't see anybody agreeing to it or supporting it. You would really get the nuts coming out of the woodwork with that one. It would be a great way to start a civil war. Don't know how to get the cat back into the bag, there are just too many cats out there and not enough bags. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/28/12 at 08:28:44 That Rf-id trigger lock itself has been rejected by the NRA. We can make it into a bracelet, you wear it when you want to use the gun, however what happens if you lose it etc etc. Fingerprint tagging is far more idiot proof, its a extension of the rf-id technology. However, it first needs to be open to being adopted. Right there it fails. The gun nuts want a gun that will be fire-able under any circumstances wihtout restriction. That's what happens when nutcase son decides to kill momma and take the guns or grandma killing ex felon decides to kill his sister and set his house ablaze and kill firefighters. Sorry freedom is not to arrive to help to put out a fire, and get shot when you try. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by houstonbofh on 12/28/12 at 10:09:49 6263787F706579110 wrote:
What happens when my wife or properly trained child needs to use my gun to defend themselves? What happens to the fingerprint system if my hand is dirty, or oily, or covered in sweat? (Have you ever been on the wrong end of a gun? I have. Your hand will be sweating.) So, yes, we want our guns to work when we need them. Your systems make that a potential problem. That is why nobody who actually uses guns wants them. Nobody. As to my response about the Swiss. You said there were no women. I searched for all of three seconds and found 1000. And you say I am wrong? I think I am just about done with this pig wrestling... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/28/12 at 10:50:19 The fact about the swiss you mis represented was that gun ownership is 100% ... its near 100% among people who have served. Since 100 women served and all men do, I'd say its close to 50% + 1000 ... duh ... You're done with the pig wrestling ... cos you have points full of holes ? Wife/child - get their own rf-tag cloned with yours ? unless you want to get another gun ? Dirty hands - finger prints still are there aren't they ? Anyway that tech has to be made to work when you hands are covered in dough. Its still in the future, rf-id tag is present ... and been rejected by NRA. Sorry man, NRA looks like it seeks to arm criminals, jus tso you would buy more guns for "self defence" ... easy cause, when they have armed the criminals too. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 12/28/12 at 11:20:40 srinath......i'm starting to think you don't like the NRA? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/28/12 at 11:28:02 NRA supports gun control. They supported the 68 gun control act. Ive seen an interview where one of their board members said "No one needs more than a single shot". Controlled opposition, understand it. Gun Owners of America,, theres your group to support. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/28/12 at 11:45:46 66797F7865625363536B79753E0C0 wrote:
Don't forget these guys: Three primary goals drive the Wisconsin-based human-rights group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO): Destroy so-called “gun control” (code words for disarming innocent people). Expose the misguided notions that lead people to seek out so-called “gun control”. Encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens. The Second Amendment is the “Guardian” of the Bill of Rights. http://jpfo.org/ |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by arteacher on 12/28/12 at 14:37:35 Just watched the Mythbusters chop down trees with a 30 cal. 3000 round pm Gatling gun on you tube. Would that qualify?? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Ed L. on 12/28/12 at 17:15:31 If the Gatling gun has a bayonet lug built into the gun and comes with a large capacity magazine then it is a assault weapon. Don't know how it could be carried under a trench coat :-? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WD on 12/29/12 at 00:26:38 If I can't drop the target with one shot, I don't take the shot. Regardless of how many rounds are available. I know wild boar is a delicacy in Europe, but here they are a dammed nuisance. Even the buzzards won't eat them. Many state game departments have issued eradication orders on them. One or two marksmen with 30 round magazines makes a whole lot more sense than sending in a couple hundred weekend wannabe types who tend to do more damage to themselves (high alcohol consumption) than they do the pig population. So few people around here still hunt that I'm allowed 3 doe, per day, from early September to January 6th. And right now we're in a 30 geese per day season. 30 round AR/SK/AK or belt fed shotgun, to me, is just another harvest tool. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 12/29/12 at 06:04:45 THE LAW (The Constitution) that governs this subject clearly states that we have the RIGHT to have weapons for self defense or other uses, particularly for protecting ourselves against a tyrannical government that would try to take away those RIGHTS. The men who wrote that LAW clearly stated those ideas in other letters they wrote. Remember, they had just fought a war against a tyrannical gov't that was trying to take away God given RIGHTS of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is a REASON they made this the #2 Amendment...it was considered ESSENTIAL for survival of the individual and the state/country. The Constitution does not place any limitations on type of weapons, which at the time could include cannon and extremely large mortars. Point is, we have the RIGHT to have weapons. It is no one else's business what we have or why. If someone else chooses not to keep a weapon then that is their RIGHT. What I have is none of your business. Legislating gun ownership by law abiding people has only one effect, and that is to limit their ability to defend themselves and their family. Does anyone really think that legislation has any effect on violent criminal activity ? If they do then they are naive & living in LALA land. Have any gun bans reduced the use of fully automatic weapons by criminals, gangs, etc ? ? NO, it has not. They do not go to a gun store and make a retail purchase, so the gun ban has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON THEM, they buy from other criminals....there isn't even any sales tax paid. Isn't that a crime ??? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/29/12 at 09:03:01 In addition to what Lancer said, which was 100% correct, IF you believe gun control laws work, go look at crime stats where gun control laws are enacted. Then, go look at crime stats where gun control Used to be & look at what happened when restrictions were removed. Its been demonstrated that gun control laws Do Not work AND,, its the Right, its the Duty & Obligation for Citizens to understand the nature of those who seek the power of office. With few exceptions, Ron Paul, most notably, seek power of the position. Cynthia McKinney is another who I think very highly of. I REmember when car jacking was all good fun for the car jackers. I remember when La. changed their law. They decided there had been enough good people dragged out of their car, beaten, stabbed or shot, maybe tangled in the seat belt & dragged to death & they decided to "Allow" the People to arm themselves. After only a few thugs lay kicking,screaming, bleeding & Dying in the streets, the car jacking game was over. Self defense is NORMAL behavior. If you are against guns, dont have one. If youre ever the victim, Im SURE youll tell anyone other than a cop who would use a gun to save your hide to put it away, that you hate guns unless a cop or a military man has it. Think, try to lay aside what youve been taught by society. TRy to consider how you would see things if not for all the anti-gun rhetoric youve had crammed into your ears. Dont just be a parrot, THINK, sit quietly & Think for yourself. Ask yourself WHY you feel the way you do. Ask yourself if its a Normal way to feel. Is it Natural?( how many even know the difference?) Is it Natural to Want the criminals to have the upper hand? Is it Natural to willingly be unable to defend ones self & ones family? Why is it superior to want to be so easily made a victim? Why is it inferior to NOT want to be unable to protect ones self, family & property from street thugs & tyrants? Ohh, isnt there a law that says No GUns in or near a school? How is that one working out? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/29/12 at 10:26:33 Yes and you can "bear" the "Gun" they had when it was written. You put the black powder in, and then put a ball from a ball bearing in ... Then fire. Works very well. You think your guns are a match for the govt ? They will level your whole state+3 others surrounding you without you even knowing if "they" chose to. These little pistols you got, yes you can kill your neighbor and eat them after they do that. Nothing you got will stand to the govt if they choose to turn on you. Technology has vastly shifted the power irreversibly to the govt. You can make any darn statement you want, but a gun you have only gives you power over your unarmed neighbor, that is until your neighbor steals your guns and blows you away with them like the Idiots did recently ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/29/12 at 12:27:50 Why do you gun-nuts...oh sorry, gun-aficionados keep repeating the same old NRA talking points over and over and over??? Yeah, we heard it the first time. Give it a rest. Oh and your misinterpretation (on purpose) of the 2nd amendment is getting old too. You always seem to leave out the "well regulated militia" part, you know, the National Guard, Air Force Reserve etc. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/29/12 at 13:45:39 & you believe that somehow the preamble to "The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow diminishes the right to keep & bear arms? PLease do explain,, & remember "Regulated" back then may not have had the same connotation as now. The commerce clause Says "Regulate" but do you really believe they meant for the fed to have the power they have read into the word? I dont. I believe it was meant to "Keep trade regular" between the states, IOW, prohibit a state from creating a tariff or tax burden on another state to protect its own industries. One wouyld need a blacks law dictionary or some other legal papers that would show the way those words were used. BUT, one thing is certain, the preamble cant mute the last part. Unless of course, they were idiots & were saying, The government can decide who has guns & what kind & the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. Theres a logical argument for your illogical position. cool, JoG |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/29/12 at 15:15:52 Number one, here is the amendment from archives.com: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Number two are the commas. Punctuation is foreign to many people today. Remove the commas and the meaning changes. As it stands, I have every right to any weapon I choose. Number 3 the national guard or the reserves are not a state entity, they are federal. However any homegrown militia in every state has been called unconstitutional. Number 4 regulated is not regulated by the federal government. I don't have a first edition, but according to my 2nd edition Webster's dictionary it means organized. Not state organized. Not federal organized. Just organized. I could be the organizer of the Benic Militia and be the only member. It still follows the letter of the law. Number 5 it does not say that the people can only have a black powder pistol or rifle. It does not exclude a cannon. It just allows for whatever is available. The constitution is not a living document. There is no reading between the lines. It says what it means and means what it says. Get over it. I have the right to any weapon I deem necessary. Number 6 the militia at that time was anyone old enough to hold a gun. That doesn't change with time. You may redefine the word but that doesn't change the law. I urge anyone who would like to understand our founding documents better to get a dictionary from the time period. You would be surprised how many words had their definitions altered over the years. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/29/12 at 16:39:07 Star; turn the clock back 15 years. Imagine you could go back in time and be governor of Colorodo. Specifically, tell us what law would you have put in place that would have prevented Columbine? You have to be realistic; you can't say take everyone's guns away because that would never had happened. What law would have stopped those two kids? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/29/12 at 16:44:41 2E2B2C27202A490 wrote:
Foreche' Thats twice as good as Touche',, Great reply, Greg.. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/29/12 at 17:29:01 OK it only says bear arms ... who said that it was a semi automatic. The "arms" of that day was a bayonet. Fill with powder put a shot in and shoot. It worked great with your "militia" on 1 side, and the tyrannical government troops on the opposite side, meeting in a field. Today the govt can level a whole city block in a country 1/2 way round the world without even getting out of bed and without putting any one on our side in any danger. Stop living a pipe dream. Your guns are there for you to shoot an intruder in the best of circumstances, or your neighbor in the worst circumstances. The Second amendment isnt worth the paper it is written on ... not because you are not armed, but because you are taking a pencil to a gun fight if you are hoping to overthrow the govt with your little pistols. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/29/12 at 17:30:34 1A282F3E39283F002C3F264D0 wrote:
I'll answer this ... I'd have to say sorry, cant be done, cos 135 years of the NRA has been imposed upon us, and I cant correct it in 1 week. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/29/12 at 19:30:41 5A5B4047485D41290 wrote:
Yes, the arms of that day were different. It doesn't say that we have the right to bear only the arms of the day and never utilize any newer technology. You people twist other stuff and insist that newer technology was meant. Why not guns? Who cares that the government can destroy a city block? What does that have to do with the second amendment? Not a darn thing. I can pick my nose with my left hand while simultaneously wiping my tushy with my right hand so we should abolish the fourth amendment. And it is my right to take up pencils against a tyrannical government. Just because YOU think we can't win doesn't mean you have the right to say I can't have my pencils. Cool, Greg |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 12/30/12 at 03:27:40 6B6A7176796C70180 wrote:
Using your logic, if applied to the 1st Amendment, would mean that the media of today with all the technological advancements are not covered by this amendment any more and are subject to control by the government. Do you believe the Freedom of Speech for people, for the media, no longer applies ? Not worth the paper it is written on ?????? And what is "the government" ? It is PEOPLE in positions of power who make laws that control all the rest of the people. What if these "people" have intentions that are not good ? What if they want more power ? What if they want ALL the power to control everyone ? Don't think that can happen here ? Why not ? Are we special ? Every dictator that has terrorized a people has done so by first removing "arms" from the population so they could not defend themselves against being taken over and controlled. It is a fact. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 12/30/12 at 03:52:32 The Second amendment isnt worth the paper it is written on ... not because you are not armed, but because you are taking a pencil to a gun fight if you are hoping to overthrow the govt with your little pistols. This statement portraits the very root of the error in your thought process. Not worth the paper it is written on ? ? ? Because of tech advances in metallurgy and machining processes ? ? ? Really ? ? ? YOUR MINDSET IS TOTALLY WRONG. The Constitution IS the foundational document ... LAW ... for this nation, and without it we are just another group of people subject to rule by the next dictator. I truly hope you can recognize this, because if not then you are just another sheep standing in line to be corralled, controlled and slaughtered. The Constitution is THE LAW of the Land that guarantees our freedoms, freedoms from tyranny. That is why men and women took up the arms they had at home and went out to fight and DIE for the freedom to live as they wanted, not subject to a dictator/king. Do you not understand the concept of "fighting for your life" ? That is what they did back then, and we have the "God given right to life" just like they did. Time and technology does not affect the RIGHT in any way whatsoever. I have the RIGHT to defend myself, my family and property from anyone who would try to take them. If you do not believe that in your heart then you are to be mourned. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/12 at 05:11:17 The Second amendment isnt worth the paper it is written on ... not because you are not armed, but because you are taking a pencil to a gun fight if you are hoping to overthrow the govt with your little pistols. Srinath; I believe if this discussion were about the Bush lead invasion of Afganstan, you'd remind us how we should have known better than to think our military might would easily carry the day. You'd remind us how the tribal Afgans armed with pea-shooters kept the Soviet Union's tanks at bay until they gave up and left. If we were discussing Iraq, you'd point out how we're wasting billions of dollars in a war we can never, ever win. It's amazing what a group of people fighting for their freedom and their lives can do with a few guns.... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/30/12 at 10:49:26 Srinath said The Second amendment isnt worth the paper it is written on ... not because you are not armed, but because you are taking a pencil to a gun fight if you are hoping to overthrow the govt with your little pistols. Ive been Waiting for this piece of PUKE argument. Nothing gets my hackles up more quickly. The "logic" used to put this together invites ad hominem like no other. NOt realizing your argument actually makes the argument for MORE & Bigger Guns in the hands of the People! BUT, you want to nullify the right to what defense we have, Because its INsufficient@! Thats INSANITY.. Thats like saying "Well,, that car is so little, if ya get in a wreck, youre sure to die, therefor, you are not allowed to wear your seatblet, because its insufficient to save you",, & YOU THINK YOURE Making SENSE!!@! Its Lunacy! |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/12 at 12:35:32 It's amazing what a group of people fighting for their freedom and their lives can do with a few guns.... and by the way, I recall a couple hundred years ago, a rag-tag group of men lead by a fella named Washington who turned the world upside down by gathering what little they had and made a stand. I'd rather have a slim chance than none at all. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/30/12 at 13:04:50 Well jeeze, all this talk of overthrowing the United States government. Now wingnuts, let's not forget that Bush (whom you all viewed through rose colored glasses) was the closest this country ever came to a tyrannical government. In fact if you will recall Bush stated that the Constitution of the United States is no more than a Godd*med piece of paper. It went like this: GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the USA Patriot Act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a godd*amn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way!” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a godd*amned piece of paper!” (in reality Bush himself was" just a godd*amned piece of crap!") Fake intelligence, lies, war crimes such a invading another sovereign nation, torture in violation of the Geneva Convention. I didn't hear too much of a fuss from you when he was in office saying sh!t like that. I didn't hear any talk of overthrowing THAT tyrannical government... So what now? is the Obama administration a tyrannical government? And all this talk of "God given rights"? Where can I get a list of these God given rights? are they listed in the bible?...must have missed that part, all I remember is that long haired brown skinned middle-eastern peace and love hippy named Jesus....and why don't these rights apply to everyone else in the world? BTW, No offence but actually our rights came from the founding fathers in the form of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not from God. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/30/12 at 14:08:01 Don't lump me in there. We haven't had a good president since well before my birth (I'm 48). They are all cut from the same cloth. And as I recall, Obama said something to the effect that the constitution is making it harder for him to make some changes. They are all the same. While we're at it, the NRA hasn't cared about me and my rights for many years either. I quit when Charlton Heston was prez and never looked back. All they do is compromise and use the same tactics that those on the left use. Besides, just because Bush said it doesn't mean that is the way it is. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/30/12 at 14:10:21 And I would like you to point out where someone said they were going to overthrow the government. I recall people saying they would protect themselves from tyrannical government. Not even close to the same thing. Although I have no proof, I would be willing to bet that many if not the majority of soldiers would not take up arms against the citizens of the country they swore to protect. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 12/30/12 at 14:12:11 Apparently there are no more excuses to disarm Amerikans so we resort to pointing out flaws in past presidents and complain that the paper the Law of the Land was written on is useless. Now I know why I don't follow any party platform blindly... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/30/12 at 14:34:39 So gunners expect to "protect" themselves from a tyrannical government, but don't expect to win (overthrow) the tyrannical government?...how is that suppose to end?? Anyway I respect your leaving the NRA even as a gun advocate. At least you think for yourself. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/30/12 at 14:41:47 382721263B3C0D3D0D35272B60520 wrote:
Dude you will never get yourself a nuclear bomb. You cant get yourself a drone, you cant get a tank, you cant get an aircraft carrier, you cant ... 1000's of things you cant get. Yes you can get a mac 10/12 whatever. You want to buy a tank ? a drone ? daisy cutters ? Actually those are saver than a mac 10. I'd be all for that ... you're never gonna sneak a tank into a school ... Seriously, and really you should not have the right to ever own a tank or a drone etc ... it was intellectual property developed by the government on their dime. Of course you can try to develop your own, probably most patents on it have long expired. Nuclear stuff is never patented, its a trade secret and ther is a huge control on the materials ... you'd never be able to get enough material to build one. In fact that is a good thing, great thing, else Iran and N Korea will be awash in the crap by now. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/30/12 at 14:46:11 5F6D6A7B7C6D7A45697A63080 wrote:
Dude, we were not trying to conquer afghanisthan, we can level afghanisthan in 20 min flat. As big as it is, I believe its bigger than CA ... yea 20 min. We were, and still are trying to build a nation out of a collection of tribes. We won the war long ago, we are after that trying to win the peace. We are not being outgunned, we are being out manuvered, and we still have 1/100th the casualties. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/12 at 15:01:40 GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the USA Patriot Act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. “I don’t give a godd*amn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way!” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a godd*amned piece of paper!” i'm 100% positive that did not happen. And I think you and siriath are missing the point about an armed citizenry. Any argument about what the founders intended the 2nd amendment is about is moot as much writings of the day clearly layed out what their intension was. See the quote below I read this morning from an early Supreme Court justice appointed by Jefferson. The meaning was always to give the citizens the ability to arm themselves and if need be, to use them against their own government. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 12/30/12 at 17:24:41 7C5B4E5D4346495B4A5D2F0 wrote:
IT IS WRITTEN ... (this is just the intro.) IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ....... It is evident when reading the Declaration of Independence that the Founding Fathers fully understood that all rights originated with/from God. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 12/30/12 at 17:42:16 "The meaning was always to give the citizens the ability to arm themselves and if need be, to use them against their own government." Broken record....over and over and over... "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." The "militia" is like the National Guard. Not a GD bunch of nuts stocking up on 30 guns and 10 thousand rounds of armor piercing ammo. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Oh really??...ALL men?...tell that to the slaves and the north American Indians of the times. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/30/12 at 18:25:28 615354454253447B57445D360 wrote:
I love this ... You do realise this is about dissolving the military during times of peace right and keep militia with arms to keep the government from turning tyrannical ... I mean, the same military the Bushies used not 1 time, but on 3 different ocassions ... You see the obvious contradiction in that dont you ? OK Fine disband the military. Then we can get the second amendment in place. As it stands its irrelevant now since the military does exist now. And no peace does not mean peace everywhere in the world. If the Hutu's and tutsi's are fighting in central africa, its not a time of war. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/30/12 at 18:34:32 44455E5956435F370 wrote:
Dude you will never get yourself a nuclear bomb. You cant get yourself a drone, you cant get a tank, you cant get an aircraft carrier, you cant ... 1000's of things you cant get. Yes you can get a mac 10/12 whatever. You want to buy a tank ? a drone ? daisy cutters ? Actually those are saver than a mac 10. I'd be all for that ... you're never gonna sneak a tank into a school ... Seriously, and really you should not have the right to ever own a tank or a drone etc ... it was intellectual property developed by the government on their dime. Of course you can try to develop your own, probably most patents on it have long expired. Nuclear stuff is never patented, its a trade secret and ther is a huge control on the materials ... you'd never be able to get enough material to build one. In fact that is a good thing, great thing, else Iran and N Korea will be awash in the crap by now. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Seriously, and really you should not have the right to ever own a tank or a drone etc ... it was intellectual property developed by the government on their dime On THEIR dime? Excuse me? & Just exactly WHERE do OUR servants get Their Money? Thats MY dime & the fact that you dont get that explains a great deal about your goob apologist positions. Oh, & YOure WRONG about what I Should have the right to own, that its not possible doesnt remove the intellectual acknowledgement of my right. I know, the depth of the concept strains the masses, especially those who cant grasp the concept of Libertarianism. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by houstonbofh on 12/30/12 at 19:11:31 787962656A7F630B0 wrote:
Really? Nuke, step one. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/06/23/clothing-designer-builds-nuclear-reactor-brooklyn-warehouse/ Drone, entire community... http://diydrones.com/ Tank, just the best example... Talk about style! http://www.france24.com/en/20121209-sham-ii-new-fighting-machine-syria-rebels Aircraft carrier... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/919689/posts Stock it with these... http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-01-27_mig29.asp |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Gyrobob on 12/30/12 at 19:33:40 A so-called "assault weapon" as referred to by the SCHLIB and his lackeys is nothing more than an ordinary small-game semi-auto rifle in a Rambo costume. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/31/12 at 01:07:47 47405A5C5B40414D4049472F0 wrote:
Really? Nuke, step one. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/06/23/clothing-designer-builds-nuclear-reactor-brooklyn-warehouse/ Drone, entire community... http://diydrones.com/ Tank, just the best example... Talk about style! http://www.france24.com/en/20121209-sham-ii-new-fighting-machine-syria-rebels Aircraft carrier... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/919689/posts Stock it with these... http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-01-27_mig29.asp[/quote] Dude ... 1. Nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb. You should know that, I think its the same difference that tripped up that other texan ... Bush. The drones are becoming more common yes, however no way are they even close to the military drones. Useful nonetheless. Aircraft carrier - that 4.5 million one has been on ebay a few years. No big deal, however it is far from useable. You could buy it, and help your second amendment argument. Mig's have been on sale a few years now, India has a few and are buying more. So as soon as you get all of these, you can get the mac10's. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 12/31/12 at 06:23:55 Quote:
BTW, No offence but this IS the problem. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/12 at 10:37:53 Ohh,, Me! Me! Dont forget to explain why IM wrong,, Srinath,, do tell me where the government gets its $$$.. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/31/12 at 10:46:35 796660677A7D4C7C4C74666A21130 wrote:
Dude, the govt gets $ form the people, however that is not you and you alone. For every nutcase that wants the govt to turn over their research secrets to any gun nut that wants to start a militia, there is 10 people that dont want the govt to do that. As in, its not just your $, its my $ too, and I really really really want it locked up. Oh yea ... you gave them the $$$ knowing these are "defence secrets" ... if you didn't want to, then why did you ? Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/12 at 14:08:42 YOu call that an answer? Thats blather, not even close to the point,, but, Im not wasing more time on you.. youve made your position clear. Goobs are the Sovereign to you, not the People., |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 12/31/12 at 15:30:52 495650574A4D7C4C7C44565A11230 wrote:
Oh yea I guess you dont have any more glib comebacks then ... Why not, the time honoured "without guns there will be more nuclears in the hands of government ... or the recently acclaimed "ping pongs will run amuck and kill millions wihtout guns" ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/31/12 at 17:17:27 YOu need to be able to discern Rights versus practicality. I KNOW I cant have a tank, I couldnt pay to run it for an hour or arm it for a minute but thats not the point. I cant even own a Canon,, & WHY Not? I would Love to have a canon! How cool would that be? Ohh,, but, Nooo,, YOU cant have one of those, YOU mite do something stewpid with it.. Guilty before doing anything wrong,, face it, youre an apologist for big government, you dont want real freedom for yourself & would deny it to others, because youre afraid of what they mite do. Youve never seen freedom nor have I. Is it not strange that we cant raise Hemp, a wonderful plant, industrial & medicinal values abound in it,,, because there are traces of THC, only laboratory detectable traces, waaay insufficient to get anyone high, yet, we are all supposed to just be thrilled to drink the water that is packed with toxic chemicals that are in sufficiently detectable levels & are KNOWN to be bad for us? BUt,, thats okay,, we NEED them telling us we can drink sorry water, but we cant raise hemp.. absolute insanity. Ohh,, but the water falls inside EPA guidelines,, PHHHHHT.. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 01/01/13 at 07:27:18 77504556484D42504156240 wrote:
You started by claiming that "our rights came from the founding fathers in the form of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not from God", yet after I showed concrete evidence to the contrary, instead of acknowledging that the founders did in fact believe our Rights did originate from God, you evaded the question by trying to change the subject to slavery. Answer the original question associated with the point that YOU claimed ... did the founding fathers believe our Rights came from God or not ? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/01/13 at 09:45:43 26393F3825221323132B39357E4C0 wrote:
Hey actually there is a lot of people who own cannons, I know of 1 who even owns an anti aircraft gun. You can ... I doubt there is too many rules against making, or even buying a cannon. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 01/01/13 at 17:54:36 "You started by claiming that "our rights came from the founding fathers in the form of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...not from God", yet after I showed concrete evidence to the contrary, instead of acknowledging that the founders did in fact believe our Rights did originate from God, you evaded the question by trying to change the subject to slavery. Answer the original question associated with the point that YOU claimed ... did the founding fathers believe our Rights came from God or not ?" They came from the founding fathers. THEY are the ones who put the God in the Constitution, not God. Now YOU answer the question. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Oh really??...ALL men??...tell that to the slaves and the north American Indians of the times. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 01/02/13 at 04:16:47 6C4B5E4D5356594B5A4D3F0 wrote:
Yes, ALL men are created equal and under God have the same rights. When the nation was founded there were a lot of states that did not want to give up their slaves, and men of the time compromised over the issue to get the states together into the nation. Many thought slavery was wrong and set them free; others did not, and it eventually led to the Civil War and a lot of people died. In my mind they died needlessly, over an issue that should not have been an issue. Slavery should not have been allowed to stand, I think it is absolutely wrong. Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world and we are imperfect men. I'm sure you will agree that you and I both have made mistakes, some of which may have cost us, and others around us, dearly. We do the best we can with what we have. YES ? ? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 01/02/13 at 05:34:23 Quote:
ONLY GOD can make all men equal.....Men can make whatever rules they want, including making others unequal due to race, religion or any other reason. We see it all over the world for different reasons from all races of people. When man decides that he alone defines what is right/wrong, good/evil. then there is None of either for it is only his choice. And before you say the majority or society dictates these things remember. The south thought slavery was OK, Hitler thought killing Jews was OK, the Mayans approved of human sacrifice, and so on, and so on. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WD on 01/02/13 at 08:35:23 Here ya go JoG... I'll take 2 full sized as my finder's fee... http://www.dixiegunworks.com/default.php?cPath=22_106_665 |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 01/02/13 at 10:24:35 594A0E0 wrote:
Too bad I can't find the full sized one... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WD on 01/02/13 at 15:42:31 http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_106_665&products_id=1653&osCsid=gfqk64ki79uiv9imcobt9brak0 Just for you Greg, full sized working field piece... Emphasis on working... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by houstonbofh on 01/02/13 at 17:47:37 Need to rig up a bike hitch! No more tailgating ever! |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 01/02/13 at 17:58:02 7F6C280 wrote:
Cool! But I can buy a lot of assault weapons and cop killer bullets for that! :) |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 01/02/13 at 20:36:39 Yes, ALL men are created equal and under God have the same rights. Lancer Yes, I like the above statement....However, the sacred Bible begs to differ: Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord. ...Oh, and don't forget the "all men are created equal" treatment of the North American Indians...you know manifest destiny inspired by God and all that. Quote: "They will not suppose that that Government will avow, as the basis of their policy towards the United States a system of arresting the natural growth of the savages within their own territories, for the sake of preserving a perpetual desert for savages." |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by mpescatori on 01/03/13 at 04:48:45 Reading this thread is really enlightening... 6F7C380 wrote:
Have you ever seen buzzards cook ? ;D You guys need help, pronto ! 1. Hire yourselves some proper boar hunters; may I suggest Italians from Tuscany and Sardinia, and Corsicans (don't ever ask a Corsican if he's French, he'll shoot you :D) 2. Hire yourselves some proper chefs, not just mule train cooks; Suddenly wild boar sausages and ragout (coarsely ground meat sauce) will become the menu of the day on anybody's and everybody's Sunday lunch, and boar will not become a nuinsance any more. Last, I don't need 30 geese/day, I'm already struggling with the one bird I married 23 years ago... ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WD on 01/03/13 at 05:35:24 So when are you coming over to hunt them? We have truffles... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 01/03/13 at 05:51:09 Yes, I like the above statement....However, the sacred Bible begs to differ: Misinterpreting the Bible to claim it condones slavery was (and apparently still is) a favorite trick of racist as justification for their actions. However, any fair reading reveals that simply isn’t the case. If you really want to get into it, I will. Or you could just read it yourself without any preconceived ideas of what it says. Read it fresh. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 01/03/13 at 06:07:23 The praticular scriptures quoted had nothing to do with the condoning of slavery, These verses have been twisted and used for centuries to portray a false (negative) perception of the Bible and Christianity along with the justification for slavery. I just dont know which twist is worse. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 01/03/13 at 06:26:57 Mship; the Southern Baptist did it for years knowing most of their congregation never really read things on their own. Truth eventually won out, but it took a long time. There are not many left who try to sneak it by like Star did. I'd like to think their numbers are shrinking, but i'm not sure that's the case. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 01/04/13 at 05:27:13 331401120C0906140512600 wrote:
Have you read THE BOOK from cover to cover ? If you have then you know that God did not promote slavery, evil minded men did that. The verses you quote are small parts of conversations from Paul to people in churches that he started during his evangelistic trips. He was speaking to problems/issues that those people were dealing with in their daily lives. Some of those people were in fact slaves and Paul was telling them that even though they may be in that undesirable position, they should still behave in a proper manner...to do good even if you are not in a good position. The purpose was to bring glory to God even in that situation. I'm not familiar with the quote you posted about the treatment of the indians, who said it or in what context, but regardless, ill treatment of anyone is wrong. Do you really think I favor being mean to anyone ? If so, why ? ? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Pine on 01/07/13 at 13:33:02 See, I skipped this thread because I didnt care how they labled gun (Assualt or not). But then yall got into the larger picture. So I might as well chip in on my position. 2nd amendment: The second amendment was put in place it ensure the checks and balances of a new centralized goverment, the that states were fearful may become a new tyrant. After all the US was created by terrorist and rebels. Thus the people were instilled with the right to use force (guns bombs anything) in order to protect that which they had fought so hard for - personal liberty. After the "civil war", the US supreme court stated that the US goverment was RIGHT to go to war with the states as seccesion is Illegal and the the ONLY form of LEGAL force is revolt. (as in by citizens with their OWN weapons). This then re-affirms the value of the 2nd amendment. Now as has been pointed out, the civilian guns we have is completely unable to the current US government. But thats not the point, the point is.. we have the right to do so. And it is that right that forms part of the checks and balances that makes up all the functional parts of the goverment. As to gun ownership (other than 2nd amendment): it is the history of the US that each citizen is allowed by law and thus to that extent obligated to self protection. Which is to say, that no entity ever created in the US exists to provide protection to citizens at large. The Secret Service is the ONLY entity ever created to "provide protection", and they do so to a select group. All others are Law enforcment. They enforce law, and seek out those that break the law. They do not protect. Whether you agree with this or not, it is how it has been since the beginning and is today. No country that has denied its citizens the ablity to defend themselves as addressed this issue. I think becasue, taken to a logical conclusion... it would be unacceptable to even the most ardent gun haters. I would love for a country to actually look at doing such, and to actually do so in a completely fair and transparent manner. Then allow people to either live there or freely leave. It would collaspe in days. Is having a gun in every home without faults? no, as we see, crazies will do as they please, as will outright criminals. But it creates the freest society on the planet, a place where others flock and fight to get in. I have guns. I have no intention of giving them up quietly. Gun ownership is my right and my heritage. Srith: I think you have been diligent in your quest to put fourth gun ownership ideas, I commend you. However, we will have to agree to disagree. Having toy guns with toy ammo controlled by a central goverment does not work within the framework of the 2nd amendment. The goverment should fear the armament of its people, that is balance. As to God given rights- God gaves us the rights. the framers only acknowledged that grant. What man or governmert can grant.. man and goverment can ( legally) take away. As to Stars attempt to train wreck the thread with Bible versus and such. Yes, we must pick and choose what right and what was not. Treatment of native american indians was/is an abonimation as was slavery, as was the statehood of Hawiai. You know full well the story and the guilt that goes along with that history. But your taunts are a mockery of the truths and and the unfolding events that put those aright. Over 600,000 people died in the US "Civil War' more than in the next 4 wars combined. We grew, we corrected. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 01/07/13 at 13:44:29 Thank you Pine. It does my heart good to know that there still is some civility in this country. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 01/07/13 at 18:02:28 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MAVGkU7_OQ4#! |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by mpescatori on 01/08/13 at 09:15:09 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wty8VSi4Fs0[/media] It starts with "90% of OPs go through their entire career without ever firing their gun... on that day, it was roughly 1500 rounds fired" AND "We were armed with pistols, they were armed with 100-round machne guns... the AK-47 is a gun that was designed for war..." My depest respect for all LEOs. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/08/13 at 11:50:59 Tough to argue against that, criminals will have illegal weapons regardless of the laws. automatic weapons are banned in Cali and at the time, assalt rifles were also banned. They had body armor on, they wanted a confortation. The lack of high powered weaponry by law abiding citizens prevented a timely response. Cops were scouring gun shops for something to fight with. Of course, these guys had a death wish. Every criminal that wants a chance to be successful in getting the money and not being caught knows it has to happen quick and to get the hell out of dodge before jonny law shows up. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/08/13 at 12:38:41 And AK47 bullets if they cost 100 bones a pop wont have reduced the rampage to say ... 3 bullets ? Dude ... its a 100 a pop, we could just sell it and get high. We will then catch bullets comming over the border instead of drugs. Yea good ... solve 2 problems @ once. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/08/13 at 12:45:46 What part of illegal weapons and ammo don't you get? raise the price to a $1,000 a shot, just means john doe won't have any. what's the price of a full auto ak47 vs. a semi-auto ak? What's the price in mexico? if it's illegal here, aren't going to just walk across the border? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Ed L. on 01/08/13 at 16:07:20 The one dollar per bullet argument is really a bit silly. One of the biggest buyer for ammo is the government. The TSA just purchased something like 4 million pistol rounds. The Russians are dumping millions of servicable rifles like the Mosin Nagent on the world market right now along with all the surplus ammo for them. It is still possible to buy ammo from the Korean war for cheap. There is just so much ammo out in circulation right now it would be impossible to control it by charging a dollar per for it. Look at the ammo our government uses for training and "Police Actions" across the world. Charging a dollar per pop would just open up one of the biggest pork barrels for the ammo manufacturers ever. It wouldn't matter where they say the tax would go, in the end the money will go right back to pork. It's the way it is done here in the good old USA. Don't know what the answer is but a dollar a pop is a pipe dream. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by mpescatori on 01/09/13 at 06:12:11 My idea of "Gun Control" is already in practice with other, far more deadly items, and nobody seems to object. http://upload.lushstories.com/110-532559_438002032907327_223052568_n1.jpg http://upload.lushstories.com/16-A1iXw.jpg Does that appear acceptable, or would somebody still have anything to object ? Considering there are far more cars on the roads than guns at shhting ranges... :) |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Pine on 01/09/13 at 10:05:01 3D2035233331243F2239500 wrote:
I cant see the images :( |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by bill67 on 01/09/13 at 13:17:52 Just heard on tv a few years ago in China a man went into grade school and stabbed over 20 kids,They all lived. What every Obama decides to do will be the right thing. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 01/09/13 at 14:47:02 wow...so if Obama comes along and decides to pass an executive order to end Americans secound amendment rights and outlawed guns. You would be OK with that? What if he decided to outlaw your first amendment rights, would that be OK...I belive you guys need to use your heads. This kind of thing can go waaaay beyond the right to own a gun. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 01/09/13 at 15:30:04 Although I strongly disagree with Bill, I am glad to see him posting. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/09/13 at 15:36:30 Key issues here: Gun control nuts want to ban assault guns and mainly cause they have high capacity mags cause they want to ban 30 round clips in anything. Gun rights nuts wants access to any gun. Rifles of the WWII are not considered Assault rifles unless they have bayonet lugs. (cause they're scarry ::) ) These have high powered rounds but small clips. Pistol grip stocks is just bogus along with many other restrictions. I understand the concerns with finger print triggers, the last thing you want to learn as you're pulling the trigger, is you're not allowed to pull the trigger. It seems to me the Key Point everyone should be addressing is gun security. I know this is part of Cali gun laws, they are locked up, trigger lock or barrel locks. Naturally, anyone with the key or combination can get at 'em. I would propose that anything with a removeable mag, have a locking fingerprint activated mag that would either prevent any use or limit the gun to single or to a few rounds. Then these guns would be checked every few years for operation and replacement of the battery. Transfer of the gun would require reset of the fingerprint at the gun shop. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/09/13 at 16:17:34 Yea what will make a gun nut lock up their gun ? We have tried everything ... see gun legislation laws are 100,000 pages of legislative actions. Of that 5,000 pages say what the restrictions are. 95,000 pages say what the loopholes are. Like your ww2 gun with a bayonet is only what is assault and its an assault weapon only in zip codes that are prime numbers ending in 2 or 6. I think all that is boo oooo oooo ooo oooo gus, costs tons of $$$ and does nothing for gun safety and to keep em from falling into the wrong hands. In addition to that, they are already in some of the wrong hands, just waiting for the owners to go nuts. We tax a bullet 99 bucks. Flat tax. All going to the feds. So you have a hoard of guns and bullets for ... "self defence". Cool, you can still have em ... when the intruders come - to say nothing of savages or bandits and vulcans etc ... shoot em. You will make sure your stash of $3 million in bullets are now kept safe ... I think the only thing that will happen with bullets after that, the people who are worth the 100 buck bullet ... like a woman kills her ex husband, not some random strangers in a movie theater. Yes all the current restrictions for sales will need to exist, and be increased slowly as the gun nuts will never let such legislation go through. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/10/13 at 08:20:03 How can anyone grow up in America & so completely fail to grasp the concepts of freedom & responsibility? How old are you Srinath? Under 30, surely. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 01/10/13 at 09:09:29 445B5D5A4740714171495B571C2E0 wrote:
This is the real question. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/10/13 at 09:21:22 Tax a bullet is a reloaders dream, I'll go hoard some used equipment right now. Yet a mag lock isn't feasible... gun nuts keep 'em loaded by their bedside... all of them. ::) |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/10/13 at 09:24:38 http://https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/282862_469506279775024_1266494907_n.png --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/10/13 at 10:18:23 372433322D2026242F70410 wrote:
So that in their drunken sleep they can shoot their wife coming back from the bathroom ? Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/10/13 at 10:22:16 7673747F7872110 wrote:
This is the real question.[/quote] Yea I understand the freedom think ... the responsibility ... you see that's where the guns given by momma to the nut case kid, guns given to convicted murderers, and the psycho's etc etc ... see that's where the gun nuts are failing in their responsibility. If any of those trigger lock RF-id or otherwise ones aren't working, I can say they are really really irresponsible ... and getting them to lock it up ... if it costs a few 1000 ... they will. I have plenty of responsibility ... the others dont and we are policing and arming our schools to compensate ? Does that even sound right to you ... of course you are already screaming about too much govt ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/10/13 at 10:23:13 594640475A5D6C5C6C54464A01330 wrote:
Yea I hahve to be young ... who else will be so stupid. Maybe I am not raised in america ... Ever cross your mind. Cool. srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 01/10/13 at 10:27:19 I must admit I keep a loaded gun very near my bed, not within reach, want to make sure I am awake when I grab it. 8 shot 12GA. if your in my house while I am trying to sleep I assume you are a threat and I will not spend the time to load my gun and If you want to post that info in a local newspaper you go right ahead. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/10/13 at 11:05:41 130D36372E323B275E0 wrote:
OK that is you ... however Mommy gave her guns to her deranged kid who killed 27 people. The 100 buck bullet will have no effect on you. You have the bullet, when its used properly, as in you shoot an intruder, cops show up with a body bag and leave ... and you get a coupon for the bullet, you can buy it @ their cost ... Same with the mommy that shot the guy in her attic. Heck I'd have cops restock her @ the time of "dead guy removal". You want to shoot up a few 1000 rounds into a movie theater with strangers in it ... its gonna cost you a few 100,000 bucks in cash. So long before you have even bought the movie ticket ... you're out say 200k. How's that for gun control. OK fine you gonna make your bullet, OK fine, none of the metals and materials will be easily available. Then you ahve to be a chemist, and a machinist to be able to do it, and it will still cost you a few 1000 @ a minimum ... Plus ... it will instantly get gun owners to lock up their spare stash of ammo. You may have a bunch in your gun ... and use it for protection ... but the 12,000 spare you own, wont be by the gun left loose. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/10/13 at 11:13:54 You have no evidence that she "gave" him the firearm. What if she followed the laws in place and stored it in a safe separate from the ammo? What if he cracked the safe open and stole it? Assume, on the other hand, that she was very lax and did not secure her firearm and he could just walk up and take it? What then? It's still the gun's fault, right? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/10/13 at 15:16:11 SrinaTH WILL PRESENT THE "FACTS" AS HE WANTS..Get used to it,. The scary thing is, I think he actually believes that things are the way he says. He doesnt even entertain the possibility that things may not have happened as he imagines. In his mind she Gave him everything he needed.,.No, he wasnt a smart kid, he didnt just figure out how to lay hands on what he wanted. She wasnt shocked to turn & see her own son about to blow her head off,, naaah,, |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/10/13 at 19:32:15 1A2B382B3B3F2B3E4A0 wrote:
Sorry, I meant to say "gave" - she got killed with the gun first, then he got all the ammo and the other guns - I think the investigation is going on though, that's the theory though. I dunno if she gave them willingly and got killed, or if he took em, killed her and got more. Its not the guns fault. Its the careless owners part. Its the careless sellers fault. There is no way to properly make sure they dont get into the wrong hands cos the NRA says, we need guns and we need them now. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 06:01:21 1F2E3D2E3E3A2E3B4F0 wrote:
One more of those bogus mis-representative cartoons and you parroting it blindly ... Why is it mis representative you ask ? No one is talking about 1 gun murder. 1000's of those happen everyday. They are just that, murders, some dont ever get solves, some do ... etc etc etc ... some are even justified. We are trying to stop the mass killings. To be representative of what the debate is about, the pile of bodies needs to be taller than the 2 men talking ... Garbage from our press as usual. Freedom of the press makes sense, only if they were staffed (or is that stuffed) with morons. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/11/13 at 06:11:31 2F2E35323D28345C0 wrote:
How was the owner careless selling it to someone who is competent and legally able to own such a firearm? Whether or not someone steals it is another argument all together. 46475C5B54415D350 wrote:
Quote:
...but,yes, ban rifles. Quote:
http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2008/10/23/the-butcher%E2%80%99s-bill-%E2%80%93-non-gun-mass-murders/ Did you even look at any of the other statistics I posted? Allow me to refresh you... http://i48.tinypic.com/2w23exf.jpg Why won't you take any action upon these other objects? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 01/11/13 at 06:45:08 http://www.therightscoop.com/15-year-old-defends-home-against-burglars-shoots-one-of-them-with-fathers-ar-15/ Good thing that gun did not have a fingerprint lock intended only for the owner. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 01/11/13 at 06:47:30 There’s a bigger point to be made other debating what is or is not an assault rifle. What needs to be clearly understood and an umbrella over all discussions on gun control is the fact taht the 2nd (and 3rd) amendments are designed to give citizens the opportunity to defend the freedom of this nation not from outside invaders, but from our own government. The idea that we will remove or further restrict the right to own a firearm is a non-starter in my mind. How often have we heard the calls to ‘arm the rebels’ of other nations? How often during the ‘Arab Spring’ have we heard this? Why? Because those citizens have no weapons which to turn on their oppressors. Is there a point in our future where our own government turns to far to the left or right and we are left with no resort other than to fight for our lives and freedoms? In my lifetime; seems unlikely. Impossible? No. The 2nd Amendment is not about guns to hunt with or guns to target shoot with; the 2nd Amendment is about the ability for oppressed citizens to unite against their own government. This cannot and will not be taken away. We have enough gun laws on the books. Enforce the ones we have. Take mental health more seriously than we have in the past. The right to keep and bear arms should remain as it is. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 06:56:00 Lots of irrelevant crap stats here ... Tobacco use kills the person using the tobacco. As does alcohol and drugs. Medical errors and unintentional are simply accidents as are auto accidents. They happen ... all the time. Really banning guns wont make a scratch in this ... Firearm homicides, as in somene intends to kill someone - or kills an intruder ... 1 murder @ a time ... can not be stopped at all. Trying to stop that will do 10 times as much damage for every bit of good it does. This is the number for 2012 that I'd like to see brought to 0. Gun rampage killings = 282. Why ? that is the school killings, theatre killings, parking lot killing ... Dont try to say I am trying to stop all death. Once again look @ all the stats you have yourself posted ... Korea, japan, china, all very crowded places. I am sure you could go on a stabbing spree in NYC and make a similar tally. Why does it not happen ... well, its easier to do it with a gun. Fire - you do know it takes like a few hours for a fire to spread right. Once again, hand him a gun and see how many he kills. Its an option in a country without firecodes and extreme crowds. Like japan, korea, India etc. 6 people killed with baseball bats ... by 4 people. Nice, not 27 by 1 guy. Stabbing spree wounds 41 in berlin. See that is a classic example of why guns are far far far superior. You give that guy a gun, and the amount of time it takes to stab 41 people and the crowded train station, I'd bet he'd have a pile of bodies taller than the train station. Once again lots of things including ping pongs are lethal as has been pointed out. Pingpongs, soccers and hockeys cant give you a 30 body pile in 10 seconds. I've seen ping pongs in action and their killing power, they barely do 1 in an hour at best. Really The count we are trying to eliminate in 2012 is 282. Yes that small ... pales in comparison with your 1,000,000 or so you have listed. Seriously ... I'll say there is atleast 28 (10%) of the shooting an intruder cases in self defence. The idea is to get that 282 as low as possible affecting the 28 as less as possible or however many there were of the self defence category. Bullets costing 100 bucks a piece and reimburseable for a justified homicide by the cops on the scene will easily solve most of it ... however it has never been tried, and it has to be run for a few years nation wide before we can see what it has done. We cant do that in NYC and not in alabama, and say it didn't work. Its probablt going to affect sport hunters ... we can work on some sort of exchange types for them. We'd have to figure that out. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 07:02:13 023037262130271834273E550 wrote:
More useless and really in consequential interpretation of the second amendment. The us has drones, and nuclear missiles. Your guns are toys if they turn on you. Your guns will help shoot your unarmed neighbor after the US government drops the nuclear bombs on you. The arab spring talks of arming the rebels ... you're interpreting that to mean guns ... OK it is guns also, but they also want tanks, recon vehicles, and other military equipment, not just guns. And those regimes dont have nuclear weapons, they have chemical at best, and they can not move the chemical weapons cos we (US and nato) are watching over that. So it is rebels with guns, and regime with tanks jeeps and guns. Close enough, and the rebels want jeeps and tanks and more guns. Fair enough. I know you wont give up your guns webster. I am not taking them. I just want you to pay for the security you have when your kids have armed guards in our schools. Cool. srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by MShipley on 01/11/13 at 07:07:02 So as a country we can afford $1.2 billion to give away cell phones. But we dont want to spend any to protect the kids. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 01/11/13 at 07:20:10 More useless and really in consequential interpretation of the second amendment. No; this is the only interpretation of the 2nd and 3rd amendments that matter. This is why they were written. this is not a debatable point. now, if you want to debate ignoring that fact, okay, debate away, but not why they are in place to begin with. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 07:24:01 766853524B575E423B0 wrote:
Cell phones ? To whom ? soldiers ? 1.2 billion is what it will cost for a couple days if we are to staff every school with enough guards for proper coverage. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 07:28:06 784A4D5C5B4A5D624E5D442F0 wrote:
Have you read the second amendment ? Paraphrasing: It says we need to arm the citizens and form militias cos its un feasible to maintain a military in times of peace. If you want to ignore that fact and post arguments using the second amendment as toilet paper, you go right ahead. You want guns to stop a tyrannical govt as outlined in the second amendment. The Govt can level your state and the 4 surrounding it in a matter of a few seconds. Your gun then can be used to shoot your unarmed neighbor and eat him. You dont stand a prayer if the govt turns against you. Besides we have a military that costs as much a the next 13 countries combined. That is right there counter to the second amendment. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 01/11/13 at 07:34:12 your paraphrased statement is as wrong as 2+2=5. this was not the intent. I suggest reading the writings of the times, the debates over this amendment. It has one meaning and not the meaning you and others are trying to assign to it in today's world. A debate over if we could sucessfully turn back our own government against us is another matter. I think perhaps 10,000 would die and another 10,000 would take their place. that is at the heart of a fight for liberty. "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" –Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by bill67 on 01/11/13 at 07:40:13 Patrick Henry was a good successful man he had 64 slaves. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/11/13 at 09:14:11 11100B0C03160A620 wrote:
Tobacco kills people through second hand. A stabbing spree of 41 wounded... and if one of them had a firearm it could've all been prevented. The government could decimate my state, and the four surrounding it, to execute me but how much support do you think they could rally after wiping out all of New England? Do you think anyone would sit idly by and let that happen? "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." Could the government get so powerful that the will of the people is irrelevant? As it was stated above yes, it could some day. I highly doubt the government would employ such weapons on it's own soil. Would US soldiers fire upon US citizens in this fantasy scenario? Would they appreciate return fire? 23282D2D7776410 wrote:
You're judging him out of context. I own 5 internal combustion vehicles. Some day the future generations might compare me to Hitler for my reckless disregard for the environment. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 09:20:52 252E2B2B7170470 wrote:
Yup, so was Benjamin franklin, and that lovely stalwart author of the constitution, Jefferson ... what a believer in equality, he even had 4 children (that we know of) with a black slave girl. What a nice white man. Self serving fool ... BTW there are some women getting raped in India ... to prevent that, I suggest ... we rape them all. Self serving advice @ its best. Or the Jeffersonian and the Strum Thurmond belief: I believe in black people being equal to white people ... therefore I'll get a few black girls pregnant ... Perfect that'll get em equal. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 09:31:24 1627342737332732460 wrote:
Tobacco second hand smoke only kill people after decades. First hand it takes decades. And we really nowadays corral smokers into their own corner of the parking lot. In my office building, there is a big ash tray ~30-40 ft from the door 1/2 way towards the loading docks. Its where you will not even walk, people drive by, but no one has to walk through that zone unless they want to. Is your argument that flimsy ... we are choking smoking out of acceptance and taxing it to death. The second amendment says militia not military. They dont have a nuclear option, dont have a drone option, nothing ... get rid of military, have militia. Long dead, the US govt killed it. You have a toy you can use to kill unarmed people. Stabbing spree ... if someone there had a gun ... well it will be the guy using the knife. Why ? cos he has motive. In a free gun society, criminals and the people criminals threaten are usually the first ones to get guns. If none of the people in that area were threatened the ywont have a gun, but the killer for certain will. Why ... he knows he has a need. He knows that morning that he was going to stab people ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/11/13 at 11:10:26 5352494E415448200 wrote:
Speaking of flimsy arguments... you're arguing it's acceptable to kill a lot of people as long as you draw it out over time? The anti-tobacco movement going public is only recent. These are mainly recent changes implemented within the last decade for the most part. There was a problem and then it was addressed. Without a complete and total ban on smoking. You don't believe in crimes of passion? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 11:18:06 5362716272766277030 wrote:
I am not arguing that its better to drag death over time - if people that know smoke inhalation is bad and they prefer to do it anyway, that is a choice. The problem was the tobacco lobby for years and years insisted tobacco was safe and second hand smoke is good for you ... like the NRA does now. You can walk away from a smoker. The education and advertisements teaching people about the dangers of smoking were done @ the tobacco companies expense. That needs to happen with guns. Pay for security @ every place that is at risk of gun rampages ... and no one is asking for guns bans, I am just taxing them to get security against guns in the hands of the whacko's. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/11/13 at 11:20:50 48796A79696D796C180 wrote:
So someone gets loaded up on guns and ammo and walks into a parking lot/movie theater/school and kills a bunch of random people ... from passion ? Really ? I almost think that "Passion" in that case is defined by the defence in the Colorado case as "Insanity". Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/13/13 at 06:40:14 56574C4B44514D250 wrote:
So someone gets loaded up on guns and ammo and walks into a parking lot/movie theater/school and kills a bunch of random people ... from passion ? Really ? I almost think that "Passion" in that case is defined by the defence in the Colorado case as "Insanity". Cool. Srinath.[/quote] But what leads them to going out and getting all loaded up? Second hand smoke was never an option. Everyone smoked at my old job. I could have quit but I needed the cash. I can remember going to bars and people smoking in there. People smoking outside buildings that I have to enter. I still have to walk by them. My parents were smokers. Maybe I should've jumped out of my crib and crawled away? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by bill67 on 01/13/13 at 07:01:46 Had you rather people walk down the street smoking,are military weapons in their hands. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Greg on 01/13/13 at 07:26:09 I would rather they had military-looking weapons (because actual military weapons are illegal) in their hands while walking down the street. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/13/13 at 08:34:34 5F5451510B0A3D0 wrote:
It would probably cut down on purse snatchings. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 01/13/13 at 16:51:24 The rifles gonns kill you a lot quicker than a pack a day. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/13/13 at 20:32:51 77535E54535D524E48535E5F483A0 wrote:
My rifle never killed anyone. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 01/14/13 at 20:45:39 I was referring to Greg's post. Its not illegal to walk down the street with a rifle. We carry them to gun shops and shooting ranges gun shows, etc. Most states let you strap on a pisol and carry it in a leg holster as long as it isnt concealed. When you try to conceal it thats when all the laws start kicking in. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/15/13 at 06:39:30 0534273424203421550 wrote:
My rifle never killed anyone. --Steve[/quote] Yours didn't, neither did mine. But The truth is that it is 40 times more likely to be used against somene in my family - as in me on my wife/kid, or vice versa than it is likely to be against an intruder. 40 times is an average ... The odds for me are likely more like 20,000 to 1, cos the ones that are likely to be intruders - think there is a biker gang that lives @ my house. The 4-5 bikes 3 cars, beer cans on the bikes, and several random man things leave everyone in no doubt, there cant be 1 man here and do all these activities. My neighbors have had break in's. Me ... touch wood, even tools I have left outside have been left un touched for days. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 01/15/13 at 07:17:56 Sri it makes me feel a lot better knowing you have a rifle living in Charlotte. A few bikers and a few beers and it can get ugly, |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/15/13 at 08:55:19 34352E2926332F470 wrote:
My rifle never killed anyone. --Steve[/quote] Yours didn't, neither did mine. But The truth is that it is 40 times more likely to be used against somene in my family - as in me on my wife/kid, or vice versa than it is likely to be against an intruder. 40 times is an average ... The odds for me are likely more like 20,000 to 1, cos the ones that are likely to be intruders - think there is a biker gang that lives @ my house. The 4-5 bikes 3 cars, beer cans on the bikes, and several random man things leave everyone in no doubt, there cant be 1 man here and do all these activities. My neighbors have had break in's. Me ... touch wood, even tools I have left outside have been left un touched for days. Cool. Srinath. [/quote] Seems like we otta just run outta gun owners.. I mite not believe that stat.. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/15/13 at 09:16:19 Quote:
http://www.firearmsid.com/feature%20articles/0900guic/guns%20used%20in%20crime.htm http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm I don't see any "assault weapons" on that page either. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/15/13 at 09:24:14 The NRA will not let common sense gun bans happen. However, career criminals dont use the guns to commit massacres. They have a gun, but hope to never use it. Massacres are done by whacko's using high capacity rifes and automatic weapons that can rain bullets down. You can stop them form getting their hands on a weapon far easier than stopping a career criminal. However career criminals are very unlikely to give you a sandy hook type pile up. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/15/13 at 16:27:05 WHAT? Quote:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/semi-auto.cfm Quote:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/1999/fully-automatic-firearms.aspx So 150,000 guns are responsible for all these massacres? Percent of prison inmates carrying a firearm during current offense Type of firearm State Federal Handgun 83.2 % 86.7 % Rifle 7.3 8.9 Shotgun 13.1 13.7 Single shot 53.9 % 49.2 % Conventional semiautomatic 43.2 51.8 Military-style semiautomatic 6.8 9.3 Fully automatic 2.4 3.8 Number of inmates 190,383 12,936 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html Quote:
http://i687.photobucket.com/albums/vv231/Paraquat_bucket/piechart_zps1888277a.png http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf ^^^ This is a cool report in California. Fully automatic weapons constitute .6% of firearms used in crimes in 2009. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/15/13 at 19:00:51 That's funny, fully automatic weapons constitute 100% of sandy hook, colorado theater, arizona parking lot and webster murders. Dude there were 282 massacres in 2011 if I recall. That out of 19,000 something ... that was all the scope of the assault ban is ... That is whacko's killing random people cos guns are too easy to get and bullets very cheap. I want them to go on a butcher knife rampage, or a baseball rampage, or a ping pong rampage. Just not a gun rampage. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/16/13 at 06:09:37 WHAT? Sandy Hook; The Bushmaster AR15 from Sandy Hook is not a fully automatic M16. Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html Aurora: The Colorado guy used Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html?_r=0 Arizona: Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting Webster: Quote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/straw-buyer-guns-webster-shooting-arrested-article-1.1229180 This is a straw purchase. When someone buys a gun for someone who cannot legally possess one. It constitutes forging a federal document. That's all four of your examples of a "fully automatic" weapon I just shut down. I turned your 100% sure thing into 0%. Got any more? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/16/13 at 11:44:46 Right riht, that is all the guns we ban and tax the bullets $99 a pop. The bullets will come in individual date stamped plastic baggies. The older junk without a date of manufacture, those are unkown quality and you never know what will be a dud. Yea we ban all of em and tax all of em ... Big guns for protection, small guns for crimnals ... and we tax small guns and all bullets ... and bullets in justified homicides are replaced without the tax penalty by cops on the scene. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/16/13 at 11:55:42 Oooo I get it, you seem to be splitting that hair between semi automatic and fully automatic ... OK good. I'd say ban em both, ban the high capacity magazines, ban the armor piercing bullets and tax each bullet 99 bucks and give that to the federal govt, put bullets in sealed baggies with a date time of manufacture stamp ... and that should deflate the used bullet market as well. Crap without a individual baggie cant be weather proofed and may turn out to be a dud ... you better fire off those and keep a few for real self defence. Its one more of the RMoney taxes for the poor, cuts in benifits for the poor, tax cuts for the rich VS taxes for the rich services for the poor Obama - its a wild debate here ... guess why ? more white men old here as opposed to the variation in the voting population ... Its a closer debate here, out in the real world, it has shifted away from the guns guns guns for all cos the second amendment says so ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/16/13 at 12:00:36 Straw purchases are illegal, and penalties for it should be very very very steep. Straight up accessory charge per murder - we could actually upgrade that to straight murder. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/16/13 at 13:19:21 5362716272766277030 wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html?_r=0 Arizona: Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting Webster: Quote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/straw-buyer-guns-webster-shooting-arrested-article-1.1229180 This is a straw purchase. When someone buys a gun for someone who cannot legally possess one. It constitutes forging a federal document. That's all four of your examples of a "fully automatic" weapon I just shut down. I turned your 100% sure thing into 0%. Got any more? --Steve[/quote] Oooo I had to look this one up ... see these are all semi automatic toting crimes ... that is because fully automatic weapons were banned in 1986. How effective is that ban ... the whacko's have moved onto semi automatics. We need to ban them ... and tax little concealable guns and bullets to the gills. we will get results in a few years. Its free ... no federal $$$ needed for it. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/16/13 at 15:40:56 5A5B4047485D41290 wrote:
Yes, I chose to focus on fully automatic weapons after reading: 6F6E75727D68741C0 wrote:
As I previously posted only two murders were ever commited with legally owned fully automatic weapons since 1934. So you're saying without fully automatic weapons people moved on to semi automatic? Let's all ride the logic train on that one... What happens when they ban semi auto? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by bill67 on 01/17/13 at 08:52:42 It good Al Capone and friends didn't have automatic weapons,They would have killed a lot of people. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/17/13 at 09:14:52 2C27222278794E0 wrote:
No way? Criminals break laws?! When did this start happening? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/17/13 at 12:57:31 They had full auto thompson's I think dillinger used a VAR |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/18/13 at 07:40:36 5C6D7E6D7D796D780C0 wrote:
Good you asked. You need explained ... If we banned semi auto's and they were squeezed out of the market - which may take 100 years ... but they will move on to revolvers and other non semi's. That will turn these 27 body piles into say 6 body piles So in a 100 years we can ban those ... That will lead them to single shot rifles. That in effect cant be concealed ... It'd be easy to spot who's looking for trouble. People will go whacko - we are trying to reduce the pile of bodies. People will be criminals. Those cant ever be stopped, we will never get guns off the hands off the bad people. A $100 bullet will make the crimes like driveby's and other senseless crimes - like a convenience store armed robbery pay less and less ... It wont affect self defence guns. You can easily use a bigger gun to shoot the intruder ... the $100 bullet wont affect that, cops will refund your bullets @ the timeof dead body removal. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/18/13 at 09:12:15 Pay no mind to the statistics that were dropping on their own this whole time? People do not kill people because guns exist. Guns are not the cause. Guns are a mean. If you remove guns from the equation people will still want to kill people and nothing will have changed. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/18/13 at 09:50:32 Srin there's only 1 way your tax-a-bullet will be acceptable, that there's acceptable tax free use of bullets, such as hunting and practice. There's no way you're gonna prevent shells used at a drive by from being thrown in with Joe Blows practice session. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/18/13 at 12:07:08 0D3C2F3C2C283C295D0 wrote:
People will kill people ... so guns are not the problem ... gun nuts say. There is 1 fundamental flaw with that ... It will take a lot longer and in some cases be impossible without guns ... Dude Like I said ... a 27 body pile up will be a 6 body pile up if You only gave the guy 6 bullets ... Practice and hunting - I dont know ... Practice @ a gun range should probably be regulated by purchase @ the gun range and they get a tax exemption. They obviously cant let you out of there with the bullets or in with shells since they account it with shells. But gun nuts play with guns and beer cans atleast in my hood. That I got no idea. With hunting - again I would think there may not be a way to exempt that ... I have a couple friends that hunt with bows and arrows ... but they hunt deer, and they feed the deer ... sorta like eating bambi. Delsheeeous ... but lots of people hunt all sorts of things. Elk, moose ... whatever, bear ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by WebsterMark on 01/19/13 at 06:16:26 I know 90% of you on here hate Ann Coulter with a burning passion, but she's a trained lawyer and an excellent researcher. Her books, especially the one about communist spies, are footnoted with all references listed. Everything is documented. I’ll copy and paste the whole article here since I’m guessing a few of you would rather die than open anncoulter.com on you computers…. Her point is logical and on target which means I expect it to be shredded and attacked with nonsense and made up facts….…. Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment. But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho's mental health problems because of federal privacy laws. At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history. The 2011 Tucson, Ariz., shopping mall shooter, Jared Loughner, was so obviously disturbed that if he'd stayed in Pima Community College long enough to make the yearbook, he would have been named "Most Likely to Commit Mass Murder." After Loughner got a tattoo, the artist, Carl Grace, remarked: "That's a weird dude. That's a Columbine candidate." One of Loughner's teachers, Ben McGahee, filed numerous complaints against him, hoping to have him removed from class. "When I turned my back to write on the board," McGahee said, "I would always turn back quickly -- to see if he had a gun." On her first day at school, student Lynda Sorensen emailed her friends about Loughner: "We do have one student in the class who was disruptive today, I'm not certain yet if he was on drugs (as one person surmised) or disturbed. He scares me a bit. The teacher tried to throw him out and he refused to go, so I talked to the teacher afterward. Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon." The last of several emails Sorensen sent about Loughner said: "We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird." That was the summer before Loughner killed six people at the Tucson shopping mall, including a federal judge and a 9 year-old girl, and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, among others. Loughner also had run-ins with the law, including one charge for possessing drug paraphernalia -- a lethal combination with mental illness. He was eventually asked to leave college on mental health grounds, released on the public without warning. Perhaps if Carl Grace, Ben McGahee or Lynda Sorensen worked in the mental health field, six people wouldn't have had to die that January morning in Tucson. But committing Loughner to a mental institution in Arizona would have required a court order stating that he was a danger to himself and others. Innumerable studies have found a correlation between severe mental illness and violent behavior. Thirty-one to 61 percent of all homicides committed by disturbed individuals occur during their first psychotic episode -- which is why mass murderers often have no criminal record. There's no time to wait with the mentally ill. James Holmes, the accused Aurora, Colo., shooter, was under psychiatric care at the University of Colorado long before he shot up a movie theater. According to news reports and court filings, Holmes told his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," but she refused law enforcement's offer to place Holmes under confinement for 72 hours. However, Fenton did drop Holmes as a patient after he made threats against another school psychiatrist. And after Holmes made threats against a professor, he was asked to leave campus. But he wasn't committed. People who knew he was deeply troubled just pushed him onto society to cause havoc elsewhere. Little is known so far about Adam Lanza, the alleged Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooter, but anyone who could shoot a terrified child and say to himself, "That was fun -- I think I'll do it 20 more times!" is not all there. It has been reported that Lanza's mother, his first victim, was trying to have him involuntarily committed to a mental institution, triggering his rage. If true -- and the media seem remarkably uninterested in finding out if it is true -- Mrs. Lanza would have had to undergo a long and grueling process, unlikely to succeed. As The New York Times' Joe Nocera recently wrote: "Connecticut's laws are so restrictive in terms of the proof required to get someone committed that Adam Lanza's mother would probably not have been able to get him help even if she had tried." Taking guns away from single women who live alone and other law-abiding citizens without mental illnesses will do nothing about the Chos, Loughners, Holmeses or Lanzas. Such people have to be separated from civil society, for the public's sake as well as their own. But this is nearly impossible because the ACLU has decided that being psychotic is a civil right. Consequently, whenever a psychopath with a million gigantic warning signs commits a shocking murder, the knee-jerk reaction is to place yet more controls on guns. By now, guns are the most heavily regulated product in America. It hasn't worked. Even if it could work -- and it can't -- there are still subway tracks, machetes, fists and bombs. The most deadly massacre at a school in U.S. history was at an elementary school in Michigan in 1927. It was committed with a bomb. By a mentally disturbed man. How about trying something new for once? |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/19/13 at 08:34:10 Very nice Webster ... but you forget 1 important aspect - the fact that gun nuts and NRA are against all background checks ... And Yes Ann Coulter is articulate, intelligent etc etc ... but she is also very very very biased. You dont fit the data to match your hypothesis. You need to be very very intelligent to do that and very articulate and convincing to convince the people who are on the fence of your theory. You can be a lot less articulate intelligent and convincing to look at all the data and let it suggest a hypothesis. No one is asking single women to not buy a gun. Being Psychotic is a civil right, but being psychotic in possession of a high capacity semi auto is what makes it $$$ and there fore we want bullet tax of $100 to pay for the damage caused to society and the security apparatus to pay for it.. We want whackos to not get guns, and since there is millions of guns out there and gun nuts will not lock em up, we want bullets to cost 100 a piece so they will lock up bullets ... so whackos dont get their hands on too many of em. Quoting Ann Coulter is like Quoting thingy "I ran the country like a puppet master and the Idiot Bush took all the blame but, I shot my friend and got blamed for it the nerve of the librull media" Cheney. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/19/13 at 10:05:02 3233282F203529410 wrote:
NOT true, NRA fully supports the laws currently in place regarding background checks and admonises the govt for not enforcing them. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by bill67 on 01/19/13 at 10:10:58 Went to the dollar store today with my rifle over my shoulder,First time in my life I ever felt safe. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/19/13 at 11:27:52 544750514E4345474C13220 wrote:
NOT true, NRA fully supports the laws currently in place regarding background checks and admonises the govt for not enforcing them.[/quote] The repugs are against funding anything like that ... And the NRA wont let any extra screening occour ... BTW first, we first need a full on gun owner registry. So if its sold, the owner needs to send in the information, like a car title with the bottom part the seller sends to dmv. That way private sales have been traced. Then there has to be a list of people who for one reason on another (and reason can be left un released, the ACLU cant object so the psycho's are just refused from the purchase) But, The psycho's will try to buy guns in private sales after a few rejects. And straw purchases have to be seriously punished. There we need to catch them @ the bullet sale. Cos being $100 no one will want to sell them more than a couple with a gun. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by LANCER on 01/20/13 at 00:04:50 Every dictatorial tyrant of the past century began his reign by making every gun owner register their weapons, followed by confiscation, followed by mass inprisonments and then deaths on an insanely massive scale. It is a very slippery slope. Some believe it cannot happen here in this country... really ? ? It is naive to think so. The naive end up with a collar & leash. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/20/13 at 02:18:32 333E313C3A2D6D685F0 wrote:
Our govt is a little different from every tyrant there has been. Every tyrant has had big guns and had to confiscate the people who had little guns so they wont hurt his people with the bigger guns. Saddam Hussein had tanks and ak47's He confiscated the ak47's from the people who were not his clan. That way he suffered less casualties when he there with AK47's. The US govt wont need to do that. You have an ak47 ... that is what they call a toy. Our govt has weapons that can obliterate your state and mine and GA and FL just for being near us. Your guns will come in handy then, you can shoot your neighbor and eat him. This argument is as hollow as all the rest. As soon as you get a few nuclear bombs and a few 100 predator drones let me know and we can talk about getting armed against a tyrannical govt. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 01/20/13 at 13:28:08 Sigh, here we go again with Lancer planning to fend off the government with his peashooters. Two Words: "Predator Drones" The gummint's got those. If they actually want your peashooter guns, they can take them without breaking a sweat. They won't, of course, but it makes your head swell to think the gummint wants your guns, which it doesn't, because the gummint has Predator drones and really big-ass guns, and they don't need your bitty little peashooters. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/21/13 at 05:17:34 Then why are they working so hard to take them away? Are yoiu really unaware of what Pelosi said? She WANTS to ban them all Mr & mrs america, turn them all in, That the People have insufficient arms to win in a war means what? Otta just turn them all in? Americans who have lost what Being American means make me sick. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/21/13 at 06:10:50 6F485D4E50555A48594E3C0 wrote:
Then you should have nothing to fear. What soldier is going to act "I was under orders" and open fire on American citizens on American soil? Do you think they are going to authorize a drone strike on, say, your next door neighbor and get away free and clear? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 01/21/13 at 11:17:37 "What soldier is going to act "I was under orders" and open fire on American citizens on American soil?" Well then why do YOU think these same folks are coming to take away your guns? It seems the gun culture in this country lives in a society where they are frightened of their own shadows, and can't talk to another human being without being afraid. So when all else fails, arm 'em! And if you feel thereatened (SYG), shoot first and ask questions later. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 01/21/13 at 11:22:19 "Then why are they working so hard to take them away? Are yoiu really unaware of what Pelosi said? She WANTS to ban them all." Mr & mrs america, turn them all in. That the People have insufficient arms to win in a war means what? Otta just turn them all in? Americans who have lost what Being American means make me sick." JOG ...sigh, JOG please give me the source, and show me word for word where Pelosi said: "I WANT TO BAN THEM ALL - MR. & MRS. AMERICA, TURN THEM ALL IN". You must stop parroting the unhinged rhetoric of the NRA. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/21/13 at 12:18:18 3203100313170316620 wrote:
Then you should have nothing to fear. What soldier is going to act "I was under orders" and open fire on American citizens on American soil? Do you think they are going to authorize a drone strike on, say, your next door neighbor and get away free and clear? --Steve[/quote] That is why you having guns is futile. Try an armed uprising to "overthrow the tryannical US government" and see if your state isn't wiped off the map. No soldier is going to fire on unarmed civilians. Sildiers may fire on armed civilians. However an armed uprising to overthrow the US govt will not be soldiers on 1 side vs you and a few 1000 of your neighbors with a gun on the other. It will be a few 1000 of you with guns, and a predator drone armed with a nuc or a some monster capacity bomb. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by verslagen1 on 01/21/13 at 14:15:44 You've never heard of Kent state have you. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 01/21/13 at 15:59:21 293A2D2C333E383A316E5F0 wrote:
Oh but I thought american soldiers will not fire on americans on american soil ? Oh yea those protesting the war need to be armed. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/22/13 at 06:16:37 4E697C6F71747B69786F1D0 wrote:
Quote:
Do you see how it is possible to make that logical connection there? Just admit that there is a logical connection present there. That's all. Don't pick a side - just say you see it. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/22/13 at 09:11:09 Quote:
Quote:
Can you grasp the magnitude of this? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/22/13 at 09:18:44 The inability to see whats happening is alarming. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/22/13 at 16:44:40 5D5C47404F5A462E0 wrote:
Oh but I thought american soldiers will not fire on americans on american soil ? Oh yea those protesting the war need to be armed. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-claim-obama-only-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term. Garrow made the following Facebook post: “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed. So, who is the source? Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Understand, this is not coming from Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura, or from anyone else the left often dismisses with great ease. Garrow is a well-respected activist and has spent much of his life rescuing infant girls from China, babies who would be killed under that country's one-child policy. He was also nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his work. His bio on Amazon.com reads: “Dr. James Garrow is the author of The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China. He has spent over $25 million over the past sixteen years rescuing an estimated 40,000 baby Chinese girls from near-certain death under China’s one-child-per-couple policy by facilitating international adoptions. He is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools, private English-immersion schools for Chinese children. Today he runs 168 schools with nearly 6,300 employees. This comes on the heels of Sunday's report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March. The WFB article states: ““Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.” Did Gen. Mattis refuse to "fire on U.S. citizens?" --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Starlifter on 01/22/13 at 17:23:29 ...sigh, I am getting so tired of refuting this kind of nonsense... The article states: So, who is the source? Garrow replied: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Oh really? A big hero?.. but he has to remain anonymous? ...some hero. And it seems the real source of this crap is "The Examiner". <snip> Examiner.com a multi-user blogging site that presents itself as a news site. Don't be fooled. Examiner.com pays its writers based (among other things) on pageviews. As a result, a lot of Examiner material tends to be sensationalistic to attract attention — positive or negative doesn't matter, it's all clicks — and you will see enthusiastic Examiner bloggers linkspamming furiously on other sites, often touting their work as "media coverage" (and themselves as "journalists" or "the press") rather than just a blog post they themselves wrote. Cranks and those with really bad critical thinking skills will link Examiner articles as if they're genuine Journalism rather than just some guy blogging. If you use an Examiner page as a reference for anything whatsoever, you better cross check your information.. You also cite the "Washington Free Beacon" as a source... The "Washington Free Beacon" is another online ultra-conservative magazine launched by the also-new Center for American Freedom think tank. So all these hysterics are no more than a tempest in a teapot from less than honest wingnut rags. You would do much better to seek our a source of legitimate and honest journalism. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 01/23/13 at 06:08:36 Ok. One down. Now go back and debate the NDAA and the proposed laws. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Paraquat on 02/05/13 at 06:18:09 2E2F34333C29355D0 wrote:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/64-drone-bases-on-us-soil/ Cleared to engage. Quote:
EXCEPT, for this guy: First Man Arrested With Drone Evidence Vows to Fight Case http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/09/first-man-arrested-with-drone-evidence-vows-to-fight-case Granted, he chased the sheriff off his property with a "high powered rifle" but it still sets a precedent. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/26/285660/drone-deployment-turns-us-into-battlefield/ http://theweek.com/article/index/228830/the-drone-over-your-backyard-a-guide http://techland.time.com/2012/02/08/congress-paves-way-for-unmanned-drones-in-u-s-commercial-airspace/ Do you see nothing wrong with this? --Steve |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/06/13 at 17:13:24 Para, some believe the goobs are "The Answer" & more & bigger can never be too much or too big. I guess someone started 'em early... |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 02/13/13 at 08:05:50 455A5C5B4641704070485A561D2F0 wrote:
If you're refering to me ... I dont actually think that at all ... This is where I come down on the side of the govt ... almost where you come down, except in different contexts ... I'd take the govt over a private behemoth of a corporation anyday ... monsatan, B of A, drug companies, goldman sachs etc ... You dont stand a chance against them, they need to be policed by the govt, which is not doing a 1/2 decent job of that either, but that's cos no one has been screaming for it. Big govt over Big oil, pharma, auto, gun etc. BTW I am from a country where I would rather private trust industry over govt ... so I didn't start out having this ingrained. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by justin_o_guy2 on 02/13/13 at 16:15:06 Yep, they NEED to be policed. Sadly, theyve bought the people who WE put in positions to do just that. Thats why I support State power, Local POwer. Its harder for a corporation to corrupt every level. All theyve got to do is corrupt the Federal powers, just a few people in each main place,, If States had the power theyre supposed to have, States could shut Monsatan down,, |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 02/13/13 at 16:53:10 485751564B4C7D4D7D45575B10220 wrote:
State power and local power all makes sense as soon as the state can print currency. States dont do squat ... they are worse ... and worse yet they dont have any real power. Its like the DMV. And States have a excellent record of shafting the poor and middle class to kiss big business ass. Like NC is passing a reduction of unemployment benefits ... its going from $535 A WEEK TO - GET THIS, $350. Why ? They have to repay the federal govt for the extension of benefits. And they want to do it sooner. Yea republicans run NC now. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 02/13/13 at 17:54:44 Oh yea no state is going to regulate enough to shut any company that employs people down, even if all their employees will be dragged in from another state. States are busy shafting their current residents to bring in "employment" and offer them huge incentives with very little checks and balances ... companies get free land, free tax free everything ... and hire no one ... and 5-6 years later leave. The latest example to do that in my area of expertise ... Google in Newton NC. I never even saw an ad for a requirement ... they shipped in people from somewhere else ... or didn't hire at all. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by Midnightrider on 02/13/13 at 20:22:22 Same thing happened with Dell here in Winston Salem. They were given thousands, free land, no taxes and I think they might have lasted maybe 5 years. And the Pubs claim we're taxing the large corporations out of business. |
|
Title: Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Post by srinath on 02/14/13 at 08:36:52 50747973747A75696F7479786F1D0 wrote:
The dell fiasco is beyond belief. They ship them to India and china, then they ship em back, getting tax and grants on both sides of that switch, and worse yet, they were a drowning business to start with. Cool. Srinath. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |