# Worst Weapons Ban EVER...



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

This bill will outlaw pretty much every semi auto ever created!! The Congresswoman who is trying to pass it had her EX-husband killed and son injured by Colin Ferguson on the LIRR years ago, so in her nutty search for mental healing she's trying to outlaw ALL semi-autos. Even Ruger 10/22's would be illegal!! And this would be a permanent ban!!

Write your Congressman / Woman TODAY about Opposing HR 1022!! It only takes a couple of minutes!!

This site will allow you to easily find your Congressman/woman:

http://www.govtrack.us/

And here is a sample letter you can use:

Subject line: Please OPPOSE H.R. 1022

Dear Congressman/woman [Insert name]:

I am a taxpaying, law-abiding citizen, a voter, and a firearms owner. I implore you, as my representative in Washington, to uphold not only the letter, but also the spirit of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is essential to our continued freedom, both as a nation and as a people.

If you are at all familiar with firearms, then you will know that the new ban that is being proposed (H.R. 1022) is absolutely & completely without merit. As in the previous failed ban, the restrictions are entirely cosmetic, and will in no way stop the use of weapons of any kind among the criminal element. This ban would restrict the free exercise of law abiding citizens' rights simply because of the fear and ignorance of a vocal minority.

Gun bans only hinder law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

You have an opportunity to stand up for the rights of your constituents, the people who voted for you. I urge you, please do not let fear and ignorance sway your decision. There are far more supporters of firearms rights (and the right to own your choice of firearms) than those opposed. We, as responsible firearms owners, do not deserve to be told that our exercise of our rights is immoral or terroristic simply because of the appearance of our chosen firearms.

You swore to uphold the 2nd Amendment with the oath you took on January 4th, 2007:

"I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Please no not break your oath by allowing H.R. 1022 to pass.

I, and millions of others, are watching your action on this matter, and our votes for you in any future elections hinge on your support for the Second Amendment.

Sincerely,

[Insert name & contact info]

Proud American
Proud Firearms Owner
NRA Member
Ducks Unlimited Member
Member of Local Gun Club/Firing Range
Soon to be member of (because of this newly proposed ban): 
www.AR15.com


----------



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

Yeah man I hear ya there-it's getting to be bs to say the least-You should no how I stand on this one-I'll be writting to say the least-

On another note-It's going to be comming to a Ballat pretty soon as well-To see if Alaska will ban the use of hand guns-
Once again it's gettin out of control-


----------



## Curley (Aug 4, 2004)

Good Luck lady! guns dont kill people, people kill people! Somebody could kill many people with a lever action 44 or what have you. I can empty a lever action in seconds... Man, even a pump shottie that holds eight would still be a force!


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Curley said:


> Good Luck lady! guns dont kill people, people kill people! Somebody could kill many people with a lever action 44 or what have you. I can empty a lever action in seconds... Man, even a pump shottie that holds eight would still be a force!


Curley - all true. But what these crazy liberals do is take one thing away at a time. First try to take the "scary" and "mean" and "evil" guns. They give them false names like "assault weapons", which is just totally untrue, since assualt weapons are Full Auto (machine guns) which takes a very special license to have one. Then they take the handguns. Then they take the deer rifles, by calling them "sniper rifles". Then they take the Double Barrel Shotguns. Then they take the Single Shot guns. Then they take the blackpowder guns. Then the crossbows, then the compound bows, then the recurve bows, then the longbows, then the knives, then the bats, then the rocks.

Sick, sick sick people, and they need to be stopped!! So please, write your congressman today!!

And, Join the NRA!! $25 a year is a small price to pay to help secure the 2nd Amendment!!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


That makes me want to shoot you.


----------



## Round Head (Sep 26, 2005)

Curley said:


> Good Luck lady! guns dont kill people, people kill people! Somebody could kill many people with a lever action 44 or what have you. I can empty a lever action in seconds... Man, even a pump shottie that holds eight would still be a force!


You're right, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I have lots of guns but I don't really need them to kill people; I can do that with my bare hands.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

94NDTA said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


That makes me want to shoot you.
[/quote]


----------



## ___ (Feb 19, 2006)

I dont know why they try and take everything. they even want your toe nail clippers


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


GG, if all guns were banned, then who would defend your right to say such nonsense?


----------



## lament configuration (Jun 22, 2003)

he probably meant that only police and military should have guns.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


GG, if all guns were banned, then who would defend your right to say such nonsense?
[/quote]
Yes...I think people that are paid to defend my rights...and paid to carry guns...should continue to do so. I dont think every schmo should have one.

And I dont think it is nonsense. The only reason I would have to own a gun is to protect myself from some crackhead carring a gun.


----------



## ___ (Feb 19, 2006)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


GG, if all guns were banned, then who would defend your right to say such nonsense?
[/quote]
Yes...I think people that are paid to defend my rights...and paid to carry guns...should continue to do so. I dont think every schmo should have one.

And I dont think it is nonsense. The only reason I would have to own a gun is to protect myself from some crackhead carring a gun.
[/quote]

Funny cuz its kinda true.... i like the fact i can go out and buy a gun if i want to and i dont think they should try and take that right from us so i will write to my congress


----------



## chris k (Dec 27, 2006)

What other rights can you do without?


----------



## hitler (Jun 4, 2006)

I emailed John McCain...... I will never hand my guns over to the military or police. f*ck THAT


----------



## 94NDTA (Jul 14, 2003)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


GG, if all guns were banned, then who would defend your right to say such nonsense?
[/quote]
Yes...I think people that are paid to defend my rights...and paid to carry guns...should continue to do so. I dont think every schmo should have one.

And I dont think it is nonsense. The only reason I would have to own a gun is to protect myself from some crackhead carring a gun.
[/quote]
If guns were banned, crackheads would still get guns. End result, crackheads and criminals with guns, everyone else without. Do you think a police officer is going to get to your house between the time a crackhead breaks into your house and makes upstairs to your bed to rob you in front of your kids?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

ck454 said:


> What other rights can you do without?


There are plenty...but that is not the issue. I dont think people used the "what other rights can you do without" when they decided to ban smokes in public buildings...or when they decided to make the drinking age 21...or many other rights that people have had taking away from them. Im sure people that smoked at work were pissed off about that...and people that were 18 were up in arms...but the ones that dont smoke were happy...and the people over 21 didnt care. Well...I dont own a gun and dont hunt...so taking guns away is a nonissue to me.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


GG, if all guns were banned, then who would defend your right to say such nonsense?
[/quote]
Yes...I think people that are paid to defend my rights...and paid to carry guns...should continue to do so. I dont think every schmo should have one.

And I dont think it is nonsense. The only reason I would have to own a gun is to protect myself from some crackhead carring a gun.
[/quote]

Did you not learn in school that those who were paid to carry guns were the very same people that our Founding Fathers had to pretect themselves against? And the very same people that our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to defend against?

And so, without the Second Amendment, who will protect you from those hired to carry guns when they knock down your door and drag you away for speaking your mind?


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Well i let ol' Dick Durbin and Obama know


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> What other rights can you do without?


There are plenty...but that is not the issue. I dont think people used the "what other rights can you do without" when they decided to ban smokes in public buildings...or when they decided to make the drinking age 21...or many other rights that people have had taking away from them. Im sure people that smoked at work were pissed off about that...and people that were 18 were up in arms...but the ones that dont smoke were happy...and the people over 21 didnt care. Well...I dont own a gun and dont hunt...so taking guns away is a nonissue to me.
[/quote]

Um, they didn't ban smoking altogether, and smoking doesn't protect you from losing other rights, nor is it part of the Bill of Rights.

Your argument is very flawed, GG.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

94NDTA said:


> If guns were banned, crackheads would still get guns. End result, crackheads and criminals with guns, everyone else without. Do you think a police officer is going to get to your house between the time a crackhead breaks into your house and makes upstairs to your bed to rob you in front of your kids?


Not if they made a law that if you got caught with a gun the minimum punishment would be we cut off your arm....period. Sentence to be carried out at time of arrest. Just cut that sh*t off...and then we take you to the hospital to get looked at.

And honestly...my odds of not getting shot..and the odds of my kids not getting shot would greatly increase if all guns were banned in this country.

And I have a 140 bullmastiff that would eat any crackhead that tried to come in my home.


----------



## chris k (Dec 27, 2006)

Grosse Gurke said:


> What other rights can you do without?


There are plenty...but that is not the issue. I dont think people used the "what other rights can you do without" when they decided to ban smokes in public buildings...or when they decided to make the drinking age 21...or many other rights that people have had taking away from them. Im sure people that smoked at work were pissed off about that...and people that were 18 were up in arms...but the ones that dont smoke were happy...and the people over 21 didnt care. Well...I dont own a gun and dont hunt...so taking guns away is a nonissue to me.
[/quote] It might be more of an issue if you had to defend your house or family or country. And our founding Fathers did not add the right to smoke in public or drink when you are 18 to the constitution, as far as I know. But like you said you have no need for them (and hopefully that does not change) so it does not effect you.


----------



## zippa (Apr 29, 2005)

They can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.....There are to many politicians going on vacation via the NRA for a bill outlawing all semi auto weapons to ever get through...The day the outlaw all guns in the good ol U.S.A is the day we have another civil war.


----------



## spinalremains (Nov 10, 2006)

zippa said:


> They can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.....There are to many politicians going on vacation via the NRA for a bill outlawing all semi auto weapons to ever get through...The day the outlaw all guns in the good ol U.S.A is the day we have another civil war.


qftmft


----------



## Round Head (Sep 26, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> If guns were banned, crackheads would still get guns. End result, crackheads and criminals with guns, everyone else without. Do you think a police officer is going to get to your house between the time a crackhead breaks into your house and makes upstairs to your bed to rob you in front of your kids?


Not if they made a law that if you got caught with a gun the minimum punishment would be we cut off your arm....period. Sentence to be carried out at time of arrest. Just cut that sh*t off...and then we take you to the hospital to get looked at.

And honestly...my odds of not getting shot..and the odds of my kids not getting shot would greatly increase if all guns were banned in this country.

And I have a 140 bullmastiff that would eat any crackhead that tried to come in my home.








[/quote]

But they don't make tough laws for criminals.
The law now refuse to sell hand guns and semi autos to felons. Ideally the law should make felons do hard times if they are caught with a gun or trying to buy a gun. I am more than happy to surrender my guns if and only if everybody do the same. I'll do that tomorrow if our government can guaranty that.
If you only live in my neighborhood, you will learn to love your guns. Not too long ago an elder man 2 blocks down did his daily morning walks on a busy street side walk and got beaten and repeatedly kicked to his head to death by a gangster initiation just a couple houses from his resident. They caught those kids and you know what their family said in court after the light sentence hearing? They said that the jail time for those boys are too harsh since they have a full life ahead of them but the old man had his life already. You guys like to debate about this when other people's father or grandfather is the victim instead of your own.
I'll tell you what, if I was there at the scene of the crime, those two bastard be dead by now. Trust me I can live with that. And with a smile too.


----------



## Leasure1 (Jul 24, 2006)

zippa said:


> They can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.....There are to many politicians going on vacation via the NRA for a bill outlawing all semi auto weapons to ever get through...The day the outlaw all guns in the good ol U.S.A is the day we have another civil war.


I coudn't have said it better myself....this will never happen....anyone ever seen the movie " V for vendetta"?
Classic example of how our rights are being revoked one at a time....next thing you know...we will have a bed time...and be forced to eat all of our corn....assholes....i would gladly participate in a civil war if it came down to that.....I love how when people come from totaly differant backgrounds have completly differant standards....which I am guessing the GG has never hunted...nor does he get wood when he hits a target from 300 yards with a 30.06....and I am truely sorry you feel this way GG....I really wish I could bring you over and blow a few rounds down the barrel of a Taurus 9MM, the 30.06, or the trusty ole' AK-47. I would say turning an old junk computer into shrapnel a few times would dramaticly improve your decision...and I am sorry you obviously feel threatned by random crackheads....maybe you should move...lol


----------



## pottsburg (Aug 30, 2006)

The only funny thing to happen if they DO ban guns would be how many stupid criminals decide to go breaking into houses after the law is put into effect. Tons of fathers and normal non-gun-using men would keep and use their guns for protection and I think that is the real way to show that you need guns - it's one of those things that you don't think does any good until you see the real benefit in having one.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

only guns i need, are attached to my shoulders! pow pow bitches! haha... joking

automatic weapons of any sort is banned here, and weirdly i feel free.i know some of those f*cking gangstas have mp5 ak,s etc. luckily they use them to smoke eachother... knives are what i "fear"...if someone breaks into my house with a gun he can gladly have all my stuff, inshurance is great, if he wants buttsexhe better have bullets in that gun..

ok i cant be serious right now, so ill leave this thread ... peace!


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.


GG, if all guns were banned, then who would defend your right to say such nonsense?
[/quote]
Yes...I think people that are paid to defend my rights...and paid to carry guns...should continue to do so. I dont think every schmo should have one.

And I dont think it is nonsense. The only reason I would have to own a gun is to protect myself from some crackhead carring a gun.
[/quote]
All through history disarming a people is the first step to enslaving a people. The Germans disarmed my people (Jews) in the 1930's, and you see were it got us. I've heard too many stories of German evil and horror from my Grandfather to ever be disarmed. Right now if the government does something we the people don't like we have 3 courses of action: vote, the courts, and finally armed conflict. Remove the last course of action, and the first two mean nothing.

Nothing is beyond the imagination of a government with no fear of the people


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

b_ack51 said:


> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin


Nice.









God help us if Hillary manages to get in. Ignorant bills such as this would be only the beginning...


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

Did any of you actually bother reading the details of the bill? This includes you Scrap. 
I only ask because you referred to a rugar 10/22 rifle. however I noticed the verbage.

"`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition." 
This would seem to include the 1022. Infact this bill looks very similar infact almost identical to the one that California passed many years back. 
This bill from what I have read so far of it addresses semi autos. All the military type weapons that normal people have no buisness owning anyways. Mac 10's UZI's SKS's AK47's M15's.

Im actually not sure what you see wrong with this bill. Aside from its anti gun. It does not address the majority of guns that people actually would go to a shop and buy. Why do people need Handguns with dual grips and 30 round mags anyways?


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

BlackSunshine said:


> Did any of you actually bother reading the details of the bill? This includes you Scrap.
> I only ask because you referred to a rugar 10/22 rifle. however I noticed the verbage.
> 
> "`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."
> ...


BlackSunshine, I don't think you understand what a Semi-Auto is. It's not a machine gun, that keeps shooting as long as you hold the trigger. That's called FULL AUTO. Semi-Auto is one shot fired per each pull of the trigger, which is how a Ruger 10/22 works. It's how millions of guns out there work, from simple 22's, to shotguns that are used for duck hunting, to rifles used for deer hunting, to "black" guns used for target fun and self-defense and even, believe it ot not, hunting.

The thing is that they try to ban guns based on how they work. But ALL semi-autos work on the same principles, no matter what they "look" like. That's simply cosmetic, and people who don't know that are people who are not familiar with firearms. And these politicians try to trick people into thinking a certain type of gun is "bad" because of what it looks like.

Besides, machine guns are already HIGHLY regulated and take very special licenses to own. AND, once you start saying "this should be banned" or "that should be banned" then you are slowly chipping away at the second amendment, and it won't be long until ALL guns are banned.

Don't be fooled by the media and the politicians and their catchphrases - learn about firearms and make an informed decision for yourself and hopefully you'll see what I'm saying is 100% true.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Scrap5000 said:


> Did any of you actually bother reading the details of the bill? This includes you Scrap.
> I only ask because you referred to a rugar 10/22 rifle. however I noticed the verbage.
> 
> "`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."
> ...


BlackSunshine, I don't think you understand what a Semi-Auto is. It's not a machine gun, that keeps shooting as long as you hold the trigger. That's called FULL AUTO. Semi-Auto is one shot fired per each pull of the trigger, which is how a Ruger 10/22 works. It's how millions of guns out there work, from simple 22's, to shotguns that are used for duck hunting, to rifles used for deer hunting, to "black" guns used for target fun and self-defense and even, believe it ot not, hunting.

The thing is that they try to ban guns based on how they work. But ALL semi-autos work on the same principles, no matter what they "look" like. That's simply cosmetic, and people who don't know that are people who are not familiar with firearms. And these politicians try to trick people into thinking a certain type of gun is "bad" because of what it looks like.

Besides, machine guns are already HIGHLY regulated and take very special licenses to own. AND, once you start saying "this should be banned" or "that should be banned" then you are slowly chipping away at the second amendment, and it won't be long until ALL guns are banned.

Don't be fooled by the media and the politicians and their catchphrases - learn about firearms and make an informed decision for yourself and hopefully you'll see what I'm saying is 100% true.
[/quote]

Exactly. And right now certain groups are slowly trying to get the public to associate "semi-auto" with negative words like "assult" so they can begin to try to ban them. They love the uninformed public!


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

a 10/22 doesn't have a tubular magazine. Lots of gentle politically correct 22 rifles have tubular magazines. Oh but those are ok, because they don't look mean.

Our government no longer serves any function and needs to be replaced.


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

Actually the bill does not apply to a stock trim Rugar 1022. Nor does it address clip size or clip fed rifles. It does specifically reinstate a previously in effect ban on assult weapons. And seriously the ones that are listed ARE assult weapons.

Again I have to ask have any of you actually read the Bill? Or have an understanding of what it says? None of the hype your presenting is addressed by the bill. The only weapons that are taken away are the same ones that should not be avalible anyhow since they were banned what 15 years ago.

And why do civilans need assault weapons? Who are we assaulting? Why do I need a hand gun that holds 50-100 rounds? Why do I need a small Machine gun that can be fit under a coat? Why do I need to make these avalible again to the public and make more avalible to criminals? 
Whats wrong with the 1000's of semi automatic weapons that are not effected by this ban?
Where can I get myself a tank?

I find it funny how ppl throw out the 2nd ammendment argument. But frankly when the constitution was written they never considered that we would be making such weapons. And that they would find their way into the hands of the common man. and the common criminal. The 2nd does not afford you the right to own any gun produced. It simply allows you to own "guns" It does mke sense that the goverment in this day and age would need to regulate what guns are allowed to be owned. There is simply too much fire power avalible. Every dumb ass cowboy does not need to have 100 rounds to pop off at high speed only to let most of them go stray. 
Consider that our laws are to protect the dumbest of our citizens from themselves and other idiots like them.


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

And yes I own a clip fed semi auto rifle. It sits in my storage locker collecting dust because as with most rifles it's worthless for home defense. A 3ft katana is so much more usefull in that respect.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

BlackSunshine said:


> And yes I own a clip fed semi auto rifle. It sits in my storage locker collecting dust because as with most rifles it's worthless for home defense. A 3ft katana is so much more usefull in that respect.


They are after your semi-auto right now, and will one day come for your katana. You are blind if you cannot see that. If you don't believe me then look at England. They had people hand in their butcher knives not too long ago!!!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Leasure1 said:


> I love how when people come from totaly differant backgrounds have completly differant standards....which I am guessing the GG has never hunted...nor does he get wood when he hits a target from 300 yards with a 30.06....and I am truely sorry you feel this way GG....I really wish I could bring you over and blow a few rounds down the barrel of a Taurus 9MM, the 30.06, or the trusty ole' AK-47. I would say turning an old junk computer into shrapnel a few times would dramaticly improve your decision...and I am sorry you obviously feel threatned by random crackheads....maybe you should move...lol


So because I dont get off on shooting a gun means I have never done it? Interesting....and a little off. I qualified expert with a M16, SAW, 45 and 9mm during my time in the military. I received an expert infantry badge in part because of my familiarity with the M60, 50 cal and AK-47. So to qualify me as someone that has no experience with weapons is not quite accurate. Ever blow the track off a tank with a LAW? I have....so before you offer to improve my decision...you might want to know something about how it is derived. It has nothing to do with the entertainment value of firing weapons...because it is fun to shoot inanimate objects. Im not a hunter...but again that doesnt mean I havent gone...it just means I dont get off on killing things.
As far as crackheads go....the west coast has a serious problem with meth...so the walking dead are wandering around...but they are harmless for the most part and there is no way they would come in my house with my dog..it just wouldnt happen.
And for those that think our keeping guns will keep the government in line....you really havent thought this through.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> As far as crackheads go....the west coast has a serious problem with meth...so the walking dead are wandering around...but they are harmless for the most part and there is no way they would come in my house with my dog..it just wouldnt happen.
> And for those that think our keeping guns will keep the government in line....you really havent thought this through.


Are harmless for the most part? Meth addicts? Are you kidding me?? They'd kill you and everyone around you if it will get them any drugs.

And as far as the govt being kept in line - Lord knows they have things that 1 million times more destructive than any civilians have, but don't tell me that an armed society is as easy to tyranize than an unarmed society. Look at Iraq - if none of those people had any arms we'd have been done years ago.

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE this country and I will fight to the death to protect it from enemies, be they foreign or domestic. But the right to keep and bear arms is the only thing that guarantees all of our other rights, and keeps this country the great country that it is, period.


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

Scrap5000 said:


> Dude, you obviously are very uninformed about these matters.


Apparently I'm the only one that actually took the time to read over the bill and what it proposed. So saying that I'm uninformed does not = my ignorance. Because it would seem I am more informed then you.

Again this bill does not address any of the things that you are claiming. you are simply hypeing it up and blowing an already Successfull bill that is being REINSTATED. This isn't a new law by any means. And the number of assult weapons in the hands of criminals has gone down dramatically since this ban was originally initiated year and years ago. the exact time frame is pretty irrelivant. I said 15 years. Its been 13, I guess that means I don't know what I'm talking about. lol.









And the reason that crime didn't jump dramatically is because tho the guns techanically became avalible again not alot of people realized this. So gun shops didn't go and stock up on them. and they simply didn't become avalible in mass to the public and the companies that used to make them didn't go and jump production on them. This is because no one was paying attention. plain and simple.

Apparently you have lacking understanding of what an assult weapon is. An assult weapon is a weapon designed or modified in a way for assulting a person or a group of people. In otherwords a gun that is not built in a way that is reasonable for hunting but rather intended for human targets. That can be fully and semi auto. Foldable stocks for concealment, silenced barrels for stealth, barrel hand grips for stablity in a rapid fire situation, High capacity clips...... yadda yadda etc etc.... 
you may consider them as cosmetic enhancements. however they do serve a functional purpose.

I'm hardly one that is "Brainwashed" thats foolish to throw such accusations out there. And does not disarm the facts that I have presented. Tho it may make it easier for you to address my comments as a fools statements. However it does not help your argument that you are basing off speculation and hype.

I've read the bill 2 x over and it still does not say what you claim it to say. 
I can try again.. Maybe its like one of those pictures that if you stare at it long enough the hidden meaning will come out.


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

As far as keeping the government in line, of course an armed populace helps. Show me an armed society that has put put onto trains and put into a gas chamber.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Scrap5000 said:


> Actually the bill does not apply to a stock trim Rugar 1022. Nor does it address clip size or clip fed rifles. It does specifically reinstate a previously in effect ban on assult weapons. And seriously the ones that are listed ARE assult weapons.
> 
> Again I have to ask have any of you actually read the Bill? Or have an understanding of what it says? None of the hype your presenting is addressed by the bill. The only weapons that are taken away are the same ones that should not be avalible anyhow since they were banned what 15 years ago?
> 
> ...


Dude, you obviously are very uninformed about these matters. *No one is asking for machine guns to not be regulated. * And the ban that came about in 1994 was only effective for 10 years, so the ban was removed 3 years ago, so you obviously so not know anything about what is going on. Since the ban was removed, THREE YEARS AGO, there haven't been the thousands of murders & doom & gloom that the liberals were so worried about & spread hysteria over.

[/quote]

What do you mean ? Do YOU think machine guns should be regulated ?


----------



## Leasure1 (Jul 24, 2006)

Well....first off....I wasn't trying to insult you GG....I just don't understant your veiw....simple as that....sorry GG.....And BS....It is not a matter of "why we civilans NEED these type weapons" ....It is a matter of this being a free country...the right to bear arms......and if I want to go out back and blow off a few rounds of ANY kind of gun I want..I should be able to....bottom line.....why do the crackheads and bank thieves have to ruin it from the rest of us.....thats like saying why do people HAVE to own pirahnas.....or why should beer be legal.....I am not going to let one drunk ruin it for me....nor one guy who puts a P in the river.....it just sucks how everyone is getting thier rights revoked.....kinda crazy IMO


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> As far as keeping the government in line, of course an armed populace helps. Show me an armed society that has put put onto trains and put into a gas chamber.


*The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power" *

Yup...being allowed to carry guns is the answer!!


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

By the way, too many gun right activists, I believe, are inconsistent in their believes - that is, they believe that the government should grant citizens right to own weapons but not to self-medicate, i.e. take drugs.

I say stop gun control and end the ridiculous unwinnable war on drugs at the same time. After all - "guns kill people" is as asinine of a statement as "drugs make people high"









Less government, more freedom


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

BlackSunshine said:


> Apparently I'm the only one that actually took the time to read over the bill and what it proposed. So saying that I'm uninformed does not = my ignorance. Because it would seem I am more informed then you.
> 
> Again this bill does not address any of the things that you are claiming. you are simply hypeing it up and blowing an already Successfull bill that is being REINSTATED. This isn't a new law by any means. And the number of assult weapons in the hands of criminals has gone down dramatically since this ban was originally initiated year and years ago. the exact time frame is pretty irrelivant. I said 15 years. Its been 13, I guess that means I don't know what I'm talking about. lol.
> 
> ...


Sucessful Bill? Successfull how? Murders with these weapons did not go down nor up since the start or the end of this ban. So it was POINTLESS. Three years have passed without the doom & gloom they predicted.

And the reason is not that no one knew it ended. Are you kidding?! These types opf fireams are the FASTEST growing segment of the firearms industry! There has been an EXPLOSION in production & purchases & clubs focused on them since the ban was lifted 3 years ago. So once again, you are not informed of the facts.

And you need to respectfully brush up on your knowledge of definitions. There is no true agreed upon definition of "Assault Weapon", meaning that it is a political/media invented term. In military terms it's an arm used to destroy barriers, like a bazooka or the explodin pipes in Saving Private Ryan.

See "Assault Weapon": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

As opposed to "Assault Rifle": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

So your definition above of "it can be semi or full auto" and the rest is clearly the political/media definition. Once again, proving you are uninformed.

As for the Ruger 10/22 being banned, this is the part of the bill that would ban it:

(D) *A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine*, and that has--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a threaded barrel;

*(iii) a pistol grip;

(iv) a forward grip; or*

(v) a barrel shroud.

So, in other words: All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example,
the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

Kinda snuck in there and not very clear to see at first, was it? That's why legal speak can be a very tricky thing for the layman to understand & see the possible ramifications, as you proved, since you had no clue how far-reaching a "grip" can be defined as.

Luckily, you have people like me who are NRA Members & can get it explained to all of us.

Here's the whole take on the bill by the NRA. GET INFORMED, PEOPLE, AND JOIN THE NRA!!

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced
H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault
weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by
"assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed
the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that
federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns
affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime,
before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the
re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime,
reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But
McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022
would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns,
including:

. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban
dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have.
Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022
would ban the modified guns too.)

. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch
Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic,
center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and
Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022
would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function
as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the
"receiver.")

. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example,
the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any
characteristic that can function as a grip."

. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most
popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield
M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims
isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44
states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns
for defense.

. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto
fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers
and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the
Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a
magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of
guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and
parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the
Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would
be a permanent ban.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> What do you mean ? Do YOU think machine guns should be regulated ?


The only thing I'd agree with is that criminals & children should not have access to any weapons. What exactly defines a child and a criminal, however, can always be a matter of debate. One day they may make speeding 5 miles above the limit a felony, so it's a trciky situation. Obviously murderers, rapists, thieves, violent people, etc etc should be banned.

As far as children are concerned, some statistics "label children killed with firearms" as anyone under 25. 25??!! That's not a child to me.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Scrap5000 said:


> What do you mean ? Do YOU think machine guns should be regulated ?


The only thing I'd agree with is that criminals & children should not have access to any weapons. What exactly defines a child and a criminal, however, can always be a matter of debate. One day they may make speeding 5 miles above the limit a felony, so it's a trciky situation. Obviously murderers, rapists, thieves, violent people, etc etc should be banned.

As far as children are concerned, some statistics "label children killed with firearms" as anyone under 25. 25??!! That's not a child to me.
[/quote]

OK, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying because you sounded like you agreed with regulation of machine guns


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> What do you mean ? Do YOU think machine guns should be regulated ?


The only thing I'd agree with is that criminals & children should not have access to any weapons. What exactly defines a child and a criminal, however, can always be a matter of debate. One day they may make speeding 5 miles above the limit a felony, so it's a trciky situation. Obviously murderers, rapists, thieves, violent people, etc etc should be banned.

As far as children are concerned, some statistics "label children killed with firearms" as anyone under 25. 25??!! That's not a child to me.
[/quote]

OK, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying because you sounded like you agreed with regulation of machine guns
[/quote]

Oh, ok, no, I feel if someone is not a criminal & is a responsible, non-insane adult, then they should be allowed to have any type of small arms. And maybe nukes. JUST KIDDING...


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> By the way, too many gun right activists, I believe, are inconsistent in their believes - that is, they believe that the government should grant citizens right to own weapons but not to self-medicate, i.e. take drugs.
> 
> I say stop gun control and end the ridiculous unwinnable war on drugs at the same time. After all - "guns kill people" is as asinine of a statement as "drugs make people high"
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> What do you mean ? Do YOU think machine guns should be regulated ?


The only thing I'd agree with is that criminals & children should not have access to any weapons. What exactly defines a child and a criminal, however, can always be a matter of debate. One day they may make speeding 5 miles above the limit a felony, so it's a trciky situation. Obviously murderers, rapists, thieves, violent people, etc etc should be banned.

As far as children are concerned, some statistics "label children killed with firearms" as anyone under 25. 25??!! That's not a child to me.
[/quote]
You dont find it a little hypocritical to take away some peoples rights to carry weapons but not others? You are basing your requirements on laws created by the government you need to protect yourself from....whats up with that?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Grosse Gurke said:


> What do you mean ? Do YOU think machine guns should be regulated ?


The only thing I'd agree with is that criminals & children should not have access to any weapons. What exactly defines a child and a criminal, however, can always be a matter of debate. One day they may make speeding 5 miles above the limit a felony, so it's a trciky situation. Obviously murderers, rapists, thieves, violent people, etc etc should be banned.

As far as children are concerned, some statistics "label children killed with firearms" as anyone under 25. 25??!! That's not a child to me.
[/quote]
You dont find it a little hypocritical to take away some peoples rights to carry weapons but not others? You are basing your requirements on laws created by the government you need to protect yourself from....whats up with that?
[/quote]

What hypocrisy is there in taking away criminals rights ? If you're a convicted felon, it stands to reason that you won't have the same rights as law-abiding citizens - that's just part of the punishment.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> What do you mean ? Do YOU think machine guns should be regulated ?


The only thing I'd agree with is that criminals & children should not have access to any weapons. What exactly defines a child and a criminal, however, can always be a matter of debate. One day they may make speeding 5 miles above the limit a felony, so it's a trciky situation. Obviously murderers, rapists, thieves, violent people, etc etc should be banned.

As far as children are concerned, some statistics "label children killed with firearms" as anyone under 25. 25??!! That's not a child to me.
[/quote]
You dont find it a little hypocritical to take away some peoples rights to carry weapons but not others? You are basing your requirements on laws created by the government you need to protect yourself from....whats up with that?
[/quote]

Not at all. When a person commits a crime, they are stripped of their rights, and that is a fair repurcussion, since it was by their own doing. And when one proves themself to be a danger to innocent people and society, they also are justly strippped of their right to be armed.

I have never said it should be a society based on anarchy & lawlessness; that's madness. Of course there should be government and laws, etc.

But WE THE PEOPLE should decide which laws are just and which aren't, and we should be able to have our grievances against the government addressed and dealt with fairly, and in the end, and only as an absolute final & last resort, after having exhausted all possible means of peaceful discourse and compromise and political process, and having endured grave & serious injustices to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness, should the people decide to form a new government & so have the means (arms) to do so.

This, my friends, was exactly the intention of our founding fathers when setting up our nation, & it was the process they enacted when breaking away from England.

Here's the Declaration of Independance, for those who may have not read it. It states WHY we broke away from England, and all they endured before deciding to do so.

The original spelling and capitalization has been retained.

(Adopted by Congress on 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 bonds 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 to 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 shown 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.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton


----------



## spinalremains (Nov 10, 2006)

Here in MT. you can buy an ak-47 or any gun for that matter in the newspaper from a private party w/o any paperwork. Felons have money. The government will never completely take away gun rights in this country since it is a GIANT industry that supports politicians and puts money in their pockets. The government also is well aware that at least 50% of the population own guns and at least 20% are maniacs that would be willing to shoot any force that came to take away their guns. As far as Iraq goes, we supplied the Iraqi government (saddam) in the 80's with weapons funding so they could stir the pot with Iran for our own political gains. And it has severly backfired. Is it a great idea that everybody should own a ak or any high capacity "assault" rifle? Probably not. Just like not every white trash should own a pitbull or a rottweiler. Just my opinion.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> Not at all. When a person commits a crime, they are stripped of their rights, and that is a fair repurcussion, since it was by their own doing. And when one proves themself to be a danger to innocent people and society, they also are justly strippped of their right to be armed.
> 
> I have never said it should be a society based on anarchy & lawlessness; that's madness. Of course there should be government and laws, etc.


But you are deciding who can and who cant carry guns....and your opinion might differ from mine...so what makes you right? I think anyone born in Tennessee shouldnt carry guns because of all the inbreeding. I dont think white people in the south should carry them because of all the racist idiots running around.

So who gets to decide?


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

And again you are reading into that more then what it says. You are now talking bout modified weapons. I'm not talking about modified weapons. I never was. So can you please tell me how this bill will change the availability of what gun I can go over to wades gun shop here and realistically buy?
No available hand guns that I would buy are going to be effected. No shotgun that a sportsman can go and buy is going to be effected.

This is a stock Rugar 1022. Notice there is no pistol grip. No foldable stock, No forward handle grip no silencer no threaded barrel etc etc etc. Perfectly legal and functional. And after this bill gets reinstated. You will still be able to go to Wal-Mart and pick one up. 









Come on Scrap. Lets talk about the actual issue rather then how you perceive it. 
Were splitting hairs over definitions. when the fact is the options termed in the bill clearly outline certain features that can be ADDED to a gun to modify its intended purpose. And place it in a position of being used against people as it's primary purpose. And that is what they are trying to curb. 
If it makes you feel better to toss out dated definitions in your defense go ahead but it doesn't change anything. An assault weapon is used for assaulting. That's the basic and core of the definition. If you wanna split hairs about the definition do it with someone else. Because you're not getting anywhere with me on that one because arguing something so trivial is pointless.

"Luckily, you have people like me who are NRA Members & can get it explained to all of us."

Oh for joy. But can I trade you in for a monkey? I've always wanted a monkey.
I might get more use out of one since I really don't need a biased group explaining to me their take on laws as fact.



Scrap5000 said:


> But WE THE PEOPLE should decide which laws are just and which aren't, and we should be able to have our grievances against the government addressed and dealt with fairly, and in the end, and only as an absolute final & last resort, after having exhausted all possible means of peaceful discourse and compromise and political process, and having endured grave & serious injustices to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness, should the people decide to form a new government & so have the means (arms) to do so.
> 
> This, my friends, was exactly the intention of our founding fathers when setting up our nation, & it was the process they enacted when breaking away from England.


So what this is all good until the law is opposed to something you are for? Then its the goverment trying to oppress you and your rights?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

> But WE THE PEOPLE should decide which laws are just and which aren't, and we should be able to have our grievances against the government addressed and dealt with fairly, and in the end, and only as an absolute final & last resort, after having exhausted all possible means of peaceful discourse and compromise and political process, and having endured grave & serious injustices to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness, should the people decide to form a new government & so have the means *(arms)* to do so.


It says arms? Wow...I had no idea....I thought we could use Elections to accomplish change. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I dont agree with the President I know what to do


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Not at all. When a person commits a crime, they are stripped of their rights, and that is a fair repurcussion, since it was by their own doing. And when one proves themself to be a danger to innocent people and society, they also are justly strippped of their right to be armed.
> 
> I have never said it should be a society based on anarchy & lawlessness; that's madness. Of course there should be government and laws, etc.


But you are deciding who can and who cant carry guns....and your opinion might differ from mine...so what makes you right? I think anyone born in Tennessee shouldnt carry guns because of all the inbreeding. I dont think white people in the south should carry them because of all the racist idiots running around.

*
So who gets to decide? *
[/quote]

Same entity that gets to sentence criminals - the court of law.

Do you think that white people in the south should be subject to incarceration as well ?

There is a big distinction to be made between what you are saying and what is currently in place - we are not talking about our own prejudices and opinions; we are actually talking about people who broke the law and were sentenced to be punished by the court of law. Each one of their cases is decided on individual basis; not because of a stereotype or someone's opinion.

If you want to debate that only violent criminals should be stripped of their rights and not those who are sentenced for crimes such as embezzlement or drug offenses, fine, I'll buy that.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> > But WE THE PEOPLE should decide which laws are just and which aren't, and we should be able to have our grievances against the government addressed and dealt with fairly, and in the end, and only as an absolute final & last resort, after having exhausted all possible means of peaceful discourse and compromise and political process, and having endured grave & serious injustices to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness, should the people decide to form a new government & so have the means *(arms)* to do so.
> 
> 
> It says arms? Wow...I had no idea....I thought we could use Elections to accomplish change. Thanks for clearing that up. Next time I dont agree with the President I know what to do


What is with you? I stated in 100 words how we have to use peaceful & political means first & how it's the very last resort & only after reaching an unbelieveable breaking point of injustice, such as our forefathers did.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Ok...now that we have established that the courts get to decide who is allowed to carry weapons based on past actions. Why is it such a leap for the government to decide what weapons people will be allowed to carry? We have come a long way from what they were when the constitution was written...dont you think that it makes sense to limit what a free society should be allowed to own? Because by your definition...any limitation is an infringement of our rights...however I would say that allowing me to own a mortar is probably not in the best interest of my fellow man. Just like anyone owning a fully or even semi automatic weapon isnt in the best interest of society. 
If you are using a weapon for protection...and you are not good enough to hit your target with one shot at close range...you are now putting everyone in danger and therefore imo should not own a gun.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

I don't own any rifles or pistols, but I shoot around 25,000 rounds of trap a year I support the NRA and have been a member for 11 years. I feel that the more bills like this go threw the more likely my Beretta 682 gold X trap, Ruger red label and the other 5 O/U's trap and field gun's will be banned or restricted in some way. as for home defence I have a browning BPS youth with 22 inch barrel.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

BlackSunshine said:


> You are now talking bout modified weapons.


 No I'm not. Regular, factory shipped, in the boxm standard Ruger 10/22.



> So can you please tell me how this bill will change the availability of what gun I can go over to wades gun shop here and realistically buy? No available hand guns that I would buy are going to be effected. No shotgun that a sportsman can go and buy is going to be effected.


Are you kidding? My run of the mill H&K .45 handgun, that I use for hunting, target practice, and home defense would be banned, because it has a threaded barrel. That is insane. My Bennelli Super Black Eagle II would be banned, because the of "the grip":

"All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and
Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022
would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function
as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the
"receiver.")"



> This is a stock Rugar 1022. Notice there is no pistol grip. No foldable stock, No forward handle grip no silencer no threaded barrel etc etc etc. Perfectly legal and functional. And after this bill gets reinstated. You will still be able to go to Wal-Mart and pick one up.


That would be banned because it is a detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifleand has "any characteristic that can function as a grip." Oh, and I believe I've read that thumbhole stocks would be banned, tool, so wave goodbye to the one at the bottom of the pic.



> And place it in a position of being used against people as it's primary purpose. And that is what they are trying to curb.
> If it makes you feel better to toss out dated definitions in your defense go ahead but it doesn't change anything.


BlackSunshine: First they come for these. Then they come for Bolt Action "Sniper Rifles" (deer guns). Then they come for double barrel shotguns. Then they come for single shot guns. Then for blackpowder. Do you get the picture? The anti's final agenda is the banning of ALL firearms, one type at a time. If you don't see that then you are blind.



> Oh for joy. But can I trade you in for a monkey? I've always wanted a monkey.
> I might get more use out of one since I really don't need a biased group explaining to me their take on laws as fact.


Hell yeah, can I hang? I always wanted a monkey too!

Anyway, biased? I've given you nothing but facts and patterns of actions. If you are too stubborn to research these facts and continue to dismiss them as false then I just hope you never learn how right I am.



> But WE THE PEOPLE should decide which laws are just and which aren't, and we should be able to have our grievances against the government addressed and dealt with fairly, and in the end, and only as an absolute final & last resort, after having exhausted all possible means of peaceful discourse and compromise and political process, and having endured grave & serious injustices to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness, should the people decide to form a new government & so have the means (arms) to do so.
> 
> This, my friends, was exactly the intention of our founding fathers when setting up our nation, & it was the process they enacted when breaking away from England.





> So what this is all good until the law is opposed to something you are for? Then its the goverment trying to oppress you and your rights?


Noooo, that is why we must write to our congressmen and encourage, nay, demand, that they vote to oppose this bill. Because WE THE PEOPLE should have the say, not some politician sitting in washington who has no idea of what the people want unless they are notified. We should have a say in what laws are passed or not...


----------



## flashover00 (Oct 19, 2006)

Funny....most gun owners that i know of(inlcuding myself), dont keep their arms for the sheer purpose of awaiting that faithful moment when the federal government has become too suppressive in its practices to warrant the use of rising up against it. I can see it now, a bunch of hicks with tek 9's and uzi's descending on the white house lawn shouting "tyranny" and " pass me another clip...im out of ammo".

First off the declaration of independance is NOT law.....dont cite it as a basis for anything. The constitution is the governing document which should have been cited in FULL.

Second, this whole argument needs to be discussed in terms of whether or not the ban will be held CONSTITUTIONAL....sorry, personal opinions (including mine above) mean absolutely dick here.
If by the grace of god this bill actually passes in congress, then someone out there will bring suit and challenge it. In order for this law to survive STRICT SCRUTINY analysis (the exact analysis that the supreme court will use in determining validity), the government will have to show that they have 
- a compelling interest in the law? THIS IS A VERY HIGH STANDARD 
- and that the ban is narrowly tailored to accomplish the goal of the law? DOES THE BAN CATCH TOO MANY WEAPONS? CAN IT BE MORE NARROWLY CONSTRUCTED AND STILL ACCOMPLISH THE GOVERNMENTS INTEREST?

Someone mentioned that reading "legal writing" is tricky.....stautory interpretation is a bitch and yes it can catch you with your pants down on occasion, but not knowing how to argue the constitutional validity of a statute in question is even worse.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Ok...now that we have established that the courts get to decide who is allowed to carry weapons based on past actions. Why is it such a leap for the government to decide what weapons people will be allowed to carry? We have come a long way from what they were when the constitution was written...dont you think that it makes sense to limit what a free society should be allowed to own? Because by your definition...any limitation is an infringement of our rights...however I would say that allowing me to own a mortar is probably not in the best interest of my fellow man. Just like anyone owning a fully or even semi automatic weapon isnt in the best interest of society.
> If you are using a weapon for protection...and you are not good enough to hit your target with one shot at close range...you are now putting everyone in danger and therefore imo should not own a gun.


There are states that allow citizens to purchase mortar rounds. Have you EVER heard of a mortar attack? So obviously it's not exactly detimental to the best interest of fellow man. And have you ever read any accounts of self defense shootings? You would give people one round? Are you completely off your rocker? You know better, having served.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

flashover00 said:


> Funny....most gun owners that i know of(inlcuding myself), dont keep their arms for the sheer purpose of awaiting that faithful moment when the federal government has become too suppressive in its practices to warrant the use of rising up against it. I can see it now, a bunch of hicks with tek 9's and uzi's descending on the white house lawn shouting "tyranny" and " pass me another clip...im out of ammo".
> 
> First off the declaration of independance is NOT law.....dont cite it as a basis for anything. The constitution is the governing document which should have been cited in FULL.
> 
> ...


Oh, right, like the AWB of 94 didn't pass and didn't stick for the 10 years they enacted it for, and as if it was constitutional. Get real! You think it can't happen again, permanently? Think again.

And I never said the DOI was law; I said it stated WHY we broke away from England - how much they endured before they decided to do it, and why they did it, and it's the basis to follow for why we should, if ever necessary, do so in the future. And before anyone starts knee-jerking, I have never said that we should revolt, not even close to that.


----------



## flashover00 (Oct 19, 2006)

Scrap5000 said:


> Funny....most gun owners that i know of(inlcuding myself), dont keep their arms for the sheer purpose of awaiting that faithful moment when the federal government has become too suppressive in its practices to warrant the use of rising up against it. I can see it now, a bunch of hicks with tek 9's and uzi's descending on the white house lawn shouting "tyranny" and " pass me another clip...im out of ammo".
> 
> First off the declaration of independance is NOT law.....dont cite it as a basis for anything. The constitution is the governing document which should have been cited in FULL.
> 
> ...


Oh, right, like the AWB of 94 didn't pass and didn't stick for the 10 years they enacted it for, and as if it was constitutional. Get real! You think it can't happen again, permanently? Think again.

And I never said the DOI was law; I said it stated WHY we broke away from England - how much they endured before they decided to do it, and why they did it, and it's the basis to follow for why we should, if ever necessary, do so in the future. And before anyone starts knee-jerking, I have never said that we should revolt, not even close to that.
[/quote]

The 94 ban was challenged heavily and was held constitutional
Challenges to Assualt Weapons Ban of 1994
The government had a compelling interest....and the law was constructed narrowly to accomplish what the government wanted. 
Lets face it, the government felt it was a good idea to keep rifles with bayonets and grenade launchers attached to it out of the hands of most citizens and the SC agreed.

More to the point.....the newest ban is different and adds a lot to the list of unacceptable which suggests it may be held unconstitutional on the grounds that it is overreaching and therefore could be considered NOT NARROWILY TAILORED.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> There are states that allow citizens to purchase mortar rounds. Have you EVER heard of a mortar attack? So obviously it's not exactly detimental to the best interest of fellow man. And have you ever read any accounts of self defense shootings? You would give people one round? Are you completely off your rocker? You know better, having served.


And what exactly would you hunt with a mortar? Who would you be defending yourself from with a mortar? It is absurd to allow anyone to have that kind of weapon. 
I have read accounts of self defense shootings...I have also read accounts of accidental shootings thought to be in self defense....I have also read accounts of children finding their parents weapons and killing themselves or others....I have also read accounts of people shooting at one person and hitting someone else because they dont know wtf they are doing....whats your point?

I think anyone that is intelligent enough to own a weapon can figure out how to c*ck it between rounds. This serves two purposes...one...you wont have some idiot constantly pulling the trigger and shooting phantom targets......you actually take your time before pulling the trigger...and maybe you find out who you are shooting before you shoot them. And second...if some idiot comes into my home with a pistol I know that the odds of him actually hitting me are very very slim.....so I get him to fire once...and I am on him before he has the opportunity to get off another round.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

flashover00 said:


> The 94 ban was challenged heavily and was held constitutional
> Challenges to Assualt Weapons Ban of 1994
> The government had a compelling interest....and the law was constructed narrowly to accomplish what the government wanted.
> Lets face it, the government felt it was a good idea to keep rifles with bayonets and grenade launchers attached to it out of the hands of most citizens and the SC agreed.
> ...


ANYTHING can be held constitutional. Slavery was once held as constitutional. All you need is a majority of the SC judges to agree with you...and as we saw in the GWB election, they can act like the hired pawns they are, and that's that. Besides, Public Policy can be used to argue for or against anything. How long before firearms are deemed to not be in line with Public Policy, and therefore bills like this "become" constitutional, or there is just a complete repeal of the Second Amendment!

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And that is exactly what the antis are trying to do - repeal the 2nd amendment, one bite at a time.

Oh, yeah, and God knows the horrors of those frequent drive-by bayonetings..."OMG, LOOK OUT, A SPEAR!!!!"

And all those rocket launcher attacks! What a plague on our society they are!!


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And that is exactly what the antis are trying to do - repeal the 2nd amendment, one bite at a time.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and God knows the horrors of those frequent drive-by bayonetings..."OMG, LOOK OUT, A SPEAR!!!!"
> 
> And all those rocket launcher attacks! What a plague on our society they are!!


So because we havent had a nuclear attack on a neighbor...should we allow the average citizen to purchase a nuclear bomb? Or how about biological or chemical weapons....should walmart carry those as well....I mean I havent heard of someone setting off a mustard bomb in a drive by either.

Please tell me you have thought this farther through then just "because it hasnt happened we should not anticipate issues and deal with them before they become a problem."


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> And what exactly would you hunt with a mortar?


The 2nd Amenddment is not about hunting.



> Who would you be defending yourself from with a mortar?


Gee, I dunno, but if I was living in Germany in 1942 and I was Jewish then I'd guess the Nazis? You think that can never happen again? Look at Rwanda. Look at Dafur.



> I have read accounts of self defense shootings...I have also read accounts of accidental shootings thought to be in self defense....I have also read accounts of children finding their parents weapons and killing themselves or others....I have also read accounts of people shooting at one person and hitting someone else because they dont know wtf they are doing....whats your point?


Yes, indeed all tragic. With firearms ownership comes great responsibility. What's _your_ point?



> I think anyone that is intelligent enough to own a weapon can figure out how to c*ck it between rounds.


As if there's always time for that? Or you want to be burdoned with remembering to have to do that in the adrenaline filled fight to save your life?



> This serves two purposes...one...you wont have some idiot constantly pulling the trigger and shooting phantom targets ......you actually take your time before pulling the trigger...and maybe you find out who you are shooting before you shoot them.


Right, because idiots, by definition, wouldn't c*ck it again, and they would take the time to find out who they are shooting at. Ummm, noooo, that's _why _they are called idiots.



> And second...if some idiot comes into my home with a pistol I know that the odds of him actually hitting me are very very slim.....so I get him to fire once...and I am on him before he has the opportunity to get off another round.


Right, because you're gonna let him shoot at you first, because he'll NEVER hit you with that first shot, and then your first shot is always from a magic bullet that will always be fired perfectly, and will always put them down with just that one shot, and you'll never need a quick follow up shot, nor will he ever have an accomplice or two that you may need to shoot quickly as well.

Are you SURE you were in the military? Because the way you write, you don't seem to know much about how most encounters go down. You sound like you've been watching too many hollywood flicks or playing too much D&D with magic weapons & powers...what the hell, man?


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And that is exactly what the antis are trying to do - repeal the 2nd amendment, one bite at a time.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and God knows the horrors of those frequent drive-by bayonetings..."OMG, LOOK OUT, A SPEAR!!!!"
> 
> And all those rocket launcher attacks! What a plague on our society they are!!


So because we havent had a nuclear attack on a neighbor...should we allow the average citizen to purchase a nuclear bomb? Or how about biological or chemical weapons....should walmart carry those as well....I mean I havent heard of someone setting off a mustard bomb in a drive by either.

Please tell me you have thought this farther through then just "because it hasnt happened we should not anticipate issues and deal with them before they become a problem."
[/quote]

1) Bayonets are spears. YOU can make one by taking a steak knife and tying it to a stick. Should they ban steak knives & sticks? DO YOU GET IT YET?

2) Grenade Launchers were & are ALREADY highly regulated...not like any ordinary shmo can get one as it was/is.

3) Neither of these two items are weapons of mass destruction. So why compare them to nukes and chemical and biological weapons, which are?


----------



## flashover00 (Oct 19, 2006)

Scrap5000 said:


> The 94 ban was challenged heavily and was held constitutional
> Challenges to Assualt Weapons Ban of 1994
> The government had a compelling interest....and the law was constructed narrowly to accomplish what the government wanted.
> Lets face it, the government felt it was a good idea to keep rifles with bayonets and grenade launchers attached to it out of the hands of most citizens and the SC agreed.
> ...


*ANYTHING can be held constitutional. Slavery was once held as constitutional. *All you need is a majority of the SC judges to agree with you...and as we saw in the GWB election, they can act like the hired pawns they are, and that's that. Besides, Public Policy can be used to argue for or against anything. How long before firearms are deemed to not be in line with Public Policy, and therefore bills like this "become" constitutional, or there is just a complete repeal of the Second Amendment!

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And that is exactly what the antis are trying to do - repeal the 2nd amendment, one bite at a time.

Oh, yeah, and God knows the horrors of those frequent drive-by bayonetings..."OMG, LOOK OUT, A SPEAR!!!!"

And all those rocket launcher attacks! What a plague on our society they are!!
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? NOT everything is constitutional....
Can you honestly sit there and say, that you know without a shadow of a doubt what that the 2nd amendment meant? NO ONE DOES....it is a vague and ambiguous amendment that few people can agree on. Some people argue that the right to bear arms against infringment was directly related to the use of militias, and others argue that the provision stands alone by itself literally.

Further, even if you know what the amendment is trying to convey, which is impossible because you cant exactly call up the framers and ask them directly, you still need to decide how it should be applied today in MODERN times. There are several parts of the consitution that have evolved over time to meet the needs of the people, and this issue is no different.

Simply put...its impossible to come up with legislation to satisfy both sides here. So there has to be a happy medium achieved just like in abortion and other issues of conflict. Mark my words, the ban may or may not pass....but even if it does you will have countless lawsuits attacking certain parts of the ban that are overbroad until it is reduced to a law that both sides can "live with" so to say

....and slavery? Come on man. If anything, your "slippery slope" argument against gun control chipping away till there is nothing left sounds A LOT like pro slavery/segregationists bitching about "the end to slavery"
Eventually the lawmakers and supreme court got it right with slavery, and with this issue... i think they will come to a suitable compromise.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

flashover00 said:


> Are you kidding me? NOT everything is constitutional....
> Can you honestly sit there and say, that you know without a shadow of a doubt what that the 2nd amendment meant? NO ONE DOES....it is a vague and ambiguous amendment that few people can agree on. Some people argue that the right to bear arms against infringment was directly related to the use of militias, and others argue that the provision stands alone by itself literally.
> 
> Further, even if you know what the amendment is trying to convey, which is impossible because you cant exactly call up the framers and ask them directly, you still need to decide how it should be applied today in MODERN times. There are several parts of the consitution that have evolved over time to meet the needs of the people, and this issue is no different.
> ...


No, I'm not kidding...think about it - anything can be made constitutional if the amemdment it violates is repealed or changed, or if the SC simply decides they are fine with it and don't care. Who's to stop/reverse them?

There are dozens of research articles stipulating that the 2nd amendment was meant for the people to defend against tyranny. 
And the Malitia is defined as every able bodied male b/t the ages of 17 and (i forget, 45?) that is not an enlisted member of a government Malitia.

What you don't understand is that the antis will keep pushing for it until all guns are banned if they have their way. They pretty much did it in England and Australia, or at the very least are very close to completing their mission. That is their goal, period. Call me crazy, but didn't slavery end?? Not saying it shouldn't have; of course it should have, but they were obviously right when they claimed it was a slippery slope.

Either way, my point is this: Even something as terrible as slavery was argued to be lawful and constituional, so don't tell me that something else terrible like banning guns could never be argued as being a good thing and upheld by law. It's happenned before, it can happen again.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

> The 2nd Amenddment is not about hunting.


I was speaking towards the use of a weapon...and if its only purpose is to kill people then personally I would outlaw it.


> > Who would you be defending yourself from with a mortar?
> 
> 
> Gee, I dunno, but if I was living in Germany in 1942 and I was Jewish then I'd guess the Nazis? You think that can never happen again? Look at Rwanda. Look at Dafur.


You dont know much about a mortar do you? First they need to travel a certain distance to arm..second they are fired in the air..and believe me...if you try to hit something closer then 200 yards it looks like you are aiming at yourself and firing it straight up in the air. The closest effective range of the handheld 60mm mortar is something like 100 yards....and you are shooting it around 1000 yards in the air...so you do the math..it is a very steep angle....and not recommended in windy conditions. Mortars are absolutely worthless at any kind of close combat.


> Yes, indeed all tragic. With firearms ownership comes great responsibility. What's _your_ point?


Lets see...you want to allow anyone to own them..how do you tell how is responsible enough to take on that power and who isnt?


> As if there's always time for that? Or you want to be burdoned with remembering to have to do that in the adrenaline filled fight to save your life?


So you have time to remove it from your weapons safe and load it...but you dont have time to c*ck it? Or are you one of those responsible owners that leaves your weapon under your pillow?


> Right, because you're gonna let him shoot at you first, because he'll NEVER hit you with that first shot, and then your first shot is always from a magic bullet that will always be fired perfectly, and will always put them down with just that one shot, and you'll never need a quick follow up shot, nor will he ever have an accomplice or two that you may need to shoot quickly as well.


First off..I never said I had any kind of weapon. Have you ever tried to hit a moving target with a hand gun? I would rather force someone to fire at a moving target then stand there like a dumbass and listen to anything they said. The odds of anyone hitting a moving target with a hand gun are very very slim...even at a close range..so I dont know about you...but I would not stand there and discuss the situation.


> Are you SURE you were in the military? Because the way you write, you don't seem to know much about how most encounters go down. You sound like you've been watching too many hollywood flicks or playing too much D&D with magic weapons & powers...what the hell, man?


Believe me...I know a lot more about it then you do. Oh yeah...I forgot...Im sure you have been in what...20 fire fights like the other e-pimps on this forum. Im also sure you have had to kill a few people that tried to enter your home and steal your diamonds. Oh yeah..then there was that encounter in the alley with a huge dude that tried to rob you....did you just stab that dude though? Oh..and how could I forget...you had to force the Nazis off your lawn with your Mortar.


----------



## flashover00 (Oct 19, 2006)

Scrap5000 said:


> Are you kidding me? NOT everything is constitutional....
> Can you honestly sit there and say, that you know without a shadow of a doubt what that the 2nd amendment meant? NO ONE DOES....it is a vague and ambiguous amendment that few people can agree on. Some people argue that the right to bear arms against infringment was directly related to the use of militias, and others argue that the provision stands alone by itself literally.
> 
> Further, even if you know what the amendment is trying to convey, which is impossible because you cant exactly call up the framers and ask them directly, you still need to decide how it should be applied today in MODERN times. There are several parts of the consitution that have evolved over time to meet the needs of the people, and this issue is no different.
> ...


No, I'm not kidding...think about it - anything can be made constitutional if the amemdment it violates is repealed or changed, or if the SC simply decides they are fine with it and don't care. Who's to stop/reverse them?

There are dozens of research articles stipulating that the 2nd amendment was meant for the people to defend against tyranny. 
And the Malitia is defined as every able bodied male b/t the ages of 17 and (i forget, 45?) that is not an enlisted member of a government Malitia.

What you don't understand is that the antis will keep pushing for it until all guns are banned if they have their way. They pretty much did it in England and Australia, or at the very least are very close to completing their mission. That is their goal, period. Call me crazy, but didn't slavery end?? Not saying it shouldn't have; of course it should have, but they were obviously right when they claimed it was a slippery slope.

Either way, my point is this: Even something as terrible as slavery was argued to be lawful and constituional, so don't tell me that something else terrible like banning guns could never be argued as being a good thing and upheld by law. It's happenned before, it can happen again.
[/quote]

Research articles?.......kind of clarifies my point that its NOT concrete what the amendment was trying to convey. Don't exactly need research articles articulating what was meant by " the freedom of speech shall not be abridged" or any other cut and dry provision.

However, even the cut and dry provisions EVOLVED OVER TIME....countless exceptions and inclusions were carved out of the literal language of the writing. All these assault weapon bans are, in reality, are examples of the law evolving to meet the needs of the people.

Man i have no idea where you went with that slavery analogy. My arguement was that you sounded like a pro slavery/segregationist bitching about the slippery slope of slavery being abolished. 
Its the same thing here man.....Im sure when they banned slavery it pissed a lot of people off down south, but in modern times we can look back upon that and see how great of a decision that was.
Who knows...if they ban weapons now, we might look back upon it as a great decision.

Are people in other countries really bitching about this so much? 
Do you really NEED the weapons man? 
Are you honestly gonna take such a weapons ban to signify a stripping of your fundamental enumerated rights??


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

this just keeps getting more and more entertaining every post.

what the hell would any one need a f*cking mortar for? and who wakes up in the morning and say honey I think im gonna buy a mortar today.

as far as hitting a moving target that's what shotguns are for.

and I think some of you must live in fear if you need what I would call non sporting guns.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> as far as hitting a moving target that's what shotguns are for.


Or a stationary target, like a 70 year old trial lawyer, just ask Dick Cheney


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> I was speaking towards the use of a weapon...and if its only purpose is to kill people then personally I would outlaw it.


Do you even realize that 99% of all guns were designed for killing people first, then game as an after thought? Including Mauser Bolt Actions.



> You dont know much about a mortar do you? First they need to travel a certain distance to arm..second they are fired in the air..and believe me...if you try to hit something closer then 200 yards it looks like you are aiming at yourself and firing it straight up in the air. The closest effective range of the handheld 60mm mortar is something like 100 yards....and you are shooting it around 1000 yards in the air...so you do the math..it is a very steep angle....and not recommended in windy conditions. Mortars are absolutely worthless at any kind of close combat.


What does that have to do with anything?? You asked whom would I defend against, and I said troops, basically, and gave you an example of how the Jews could have fought the Germans - I.E. the Government, which is what we've been talking about for the past 3 hours.



> Lets see...you want to allow anyone to own them..how do you tell how is responsible enough to take on that power and who isnt?


Any non-insane, non mentally handicapped, non criminal has the right.



> So you have time to remove it from your weapons safe and load it...but you dont have time to c*ck it? Or are you one of those responsible owners that leaves your weapon under your pillow?


You're talking about cocking it between each shot; what does the initial c*ck have to do with anything?



> First off..I never said I had any kind of weapon. Have you ever tried to hit a moving target with a hand gun? I would rather force someone to fire at a moving target then stand there like a dumbass and listen to anything they said. The odds of anyone hitting a moving target with a hand gun are very very slim...even at a close range..so I dont know about you...but I would not stand there and discuss the situation.


Oh, sorry, misunderstood. So you'd "tackle" him after he fired the first round & missed you. Riiiiight. Not to mention his accomplice(s). Ok, Mr. Bruce Lee, whatever you say!



> Believe me...I know a lot more about it then you do. Oh yeah...I forgot...Im sure you have been in what...20 fire fights like the other e-pimps on this forum. Im also sure you have had to kill a few people that tried to enter your home and steal your diamonds. Oh yeah..then there was that encounter in the alley with a huge dude that tried to rob you....did you just stab that dude though? Oh..and how could I forget...you had to force the Nazis off your lawn with your Mortar.


Um, when did I ever say I was in any firefights or killed anyone or used a gun in self defense or that I sport bling bling or had encounters in alleys? What I've said is that what you've written is in complete comtradiction with every single true life article and interview and first hand account I've ever read or heard about in magazines, forums, and in person. So it makes me wonder just exactly how much you know about it.



06 C6 LS2 said:


> what the hell would any one need a f*cking mortar for? and who wakes up in the morning and say honey I think im gonna buy a mortar today.


Who said anyone NEEDS it? He said it's against the good of mankind, and I pointed out how some people have them & there has never been a problem. Basic, Fundamental Reading Comprehension, people...it's an important skill!


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> Research articles?.......kind of clarifies my point that its NOT concrete what the amendment was trying to convey. Don't exactly need research articles articulating what was meant by " the freedom of speech shall not be abridged" or any other cut and dry provision.


YES, based upon other writings and speeches made by the same drafters of the constitution.



> However, even the cut and dry provisions EVOLVED OVER TIME....countless exceptions and inclusions were carved out of the literal language of the writing. All these assault weapon bans are, in reality, are examples of the law evolving to meet the needs of the people.


Noooo, they are examples of politicians grabbing power based on fear and misunderstanding.



> Man i have no idea where you went with that slavery analogy. My arguement was that you sounded like a pro slavery/segregationist bitching about the slippery slope of slavery being abolished.


I'll try to put it in simpler words: ANYTHING can be thought of as good, and the law can back it, even if it's a horrible thing like slavery. See what I mean? So banning guns, which would be a horrible thing, could possibly be seen as good and backed by law. Not sure how else to explain it to you.



> Its the same thing here man.....Im sure when they banned slavery it pissed a lot of people off down south, but in modern times we can look back upon that and see how great of a decision that was.
> Who knows...if they ban weapons now, we might look back upon it as a great decision.
> 
> Are people in other countries really bitching about this so much?
> ...


I'm starting to think you work for Sarah Brady / Handgun Control Inc.


----------



## air*force*one (Mar 5, 2004)

crazy Americans


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

air*force*one said:


> crazy Americans


Clueless & Thankless foreigners who've gotten saved by America time & time again.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> Um, when did I ever say I was in any firefights or killed anyone or used a gun in self defense or that I sport bling bling or had encounters in alleys? What I've said is that what you've written is in complete comtradiction with every single true life article and interview and first hand account I've ever read or heard about in magazines, forums, and in person. So it makes me wonder just exactly how much you know about it.


I think it was an obvious assumption that you had to have had experience if you can say that what I am writing isnt true or is based on hollywood and not reality. I would love to hear why someone that has been trained in weapons, what they are capable of and how to use them, and then grilled day after day after day to deal with potential confrontations..should react the same way to situations as someone that has not had that training. Im just curious.
We could go in circles forever with the other issues...we just disagree.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> We could go in circles forever with the other issues...we just disagree.


Agreed...



> I think it was an obvious assumption that you had to have had experience if you can say that what I am writing isnt true or is based on hollywood and not reality. I would love to hear why someone that has been trained in weapons, what they are capable of and how to use them, and then grilled day after day after day to deal with potential confrontations..should react the same way to situations as someone that has not had that training. Im just curious.


I don't have an answer for you there, just based upon what I've read and researched and seen with my own eyes even by hunting small, "fragile" animals like ducks, quail, etc. and how tough it is to put something down. Resources such as S.W.A.T., American Hunter, American Rifleman, reading various true-life war books, true-life war articles, history channel, speaking to victims (I live in the bronx, plenty here) & police, thefiringline.com, etc etc etc. Not saying book knowledge is better than your knowledge, but I am saying that all of these various sources are all in line with one another regarding consistency, and your writing is completely not in tune with that.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> I don't have an answer for you there, just based upon what I've read and researched and seen with my own eyes even by hunting small, "fragile" animals like ducks, quail, etc. and how tough it is to put something down. Resources such as S.W.A.T., American Hunter, American Rifleman, reading various true-life war books, true-life war articles, history channel, speaking to victims (I live in the bronx, plenty here) & police, thefiringline.com, etc etc etc. Not saying book knowledge is better than your knowledge, but I am saying that all of these various sources are all in line with one another regarding consistency, *and your writing is completely not in tune with that.*


Where exactly?


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

I don't understand the logic of banning firearms. Badguys have guns and always will. Why should I lose the ability to protect myself and my family from these people?

If you don't want to take on that responsibility for yourself and wish to leave it to law enforcement, that's fine, but why should I lose such a basic right?

This bill is just a stab at renewing the AWB, but with such a broad scope it would ban a lot of firearms out there; some of the same firearms I and others use for home protection. This won't help lower crimerates involving firearms, it just hurts the average Joe, hunters, and competitive shooters.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I don't have an answer for you there, just based upon what I've read and researched and seen with my own eyes even by hunting small, "fragile" animals like ducks, quail, etc. and how tough it is to put something down. Resources such as S.W.A.T., American Hunter, American Rifleman, reading various true-life war books, true-life war articles, history channel, speaking to victims (I live in the bronx, plenty here) & police, thefiringline.com, etc etc etc. Not saying book knowledge is better than your knowledge, but I am saying that all of these various sources are all in line with one another regarding consistency, *and your writing is completely not in tune with that.*


Where exactly?
[/quote]

All of it...from saying you'd be happy to only have guns that you need to c*ck after each shot to keep idiots in check (which can cause so many other problems and not solve the idiot problem) to saying one round is all you need, to saying you'd be able to run and have the bad guy miss you (as if they would always miss, or you could always run, or they wouldn't have the gun to your head already)....just lots of things like that. Just doesn't jive with every single thing I've ever heard/read/seen related to firearms and self defense.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

> All of it...from saying you'd be happy to only have guns that you need to c*ck after each shot to keep idiots in check (which can cause so many other problems and not solve the idiot problem)


I dont own a gun...so why wouldnt I want it to take longer for people to fire a second round? It is the same principle as removing fully auto weapons....the devistation that can be cause in such a short amount of time...if you lengthen the time between rounds then it should reduce the overall amount of times a person can fire.


> to saying one round is all you need,


I never said I had a gun.


> to saying you'd be able to run and have the bad guy miss you (as if they would always miss, or you could always run, or they wouldn't have the gun to your head already)....


I know how hard it is to miss a moving target with one shot (not with a shotgun







)...so if I was in a situation where I could run..I would. And I am talking about people that are trained to shoot these weapons...not just the average person that picks up a gun. It is difficult to hit a moving target even at 10 feet...so if you had one shot and then had to make a conscious effort to c*ck the weapon again...it would be much harder. I like my chances with someone that is unarmed that has come into my house. There is no way anyone could sneak up to me in my house...my dog goes nuts when anyone comes near the house...let alone enters it. So I have no fear of someone breaking into my house in the middle of the night and getting any kind of position on me. Norman just makes entirely too much noise. If you are talking about someone on the street putting a gun to my head then sure...not much you can do about that...even if you just happen to be carrying a gun at the time.


> just lots of things like that. Just doesn't jive with every single thing I've ever heard/read/seen related to firearms and self defense.


I have never been attacked in real life...so it is impossible to know how I would react...I am just relating what I know about weapons and people. I personally dont think they are a good form of home security...and given the mentality of many that own them...they can be more dangerous to the owner and their family then any criminal.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> I never said I had a gun...so why wouldnt I want it to take longer for people to fire a second round? It is the same principle as removing fully auto weapons....


I know - I was refering to how you were talking about other people only needing one round, & if they can't hit what they aim for then they are dangerous and have no business having a gun. That makes no sense & is not a very defensible position to be in, especially if there is more than one assailant. If all guns have only one shot & need to be recocked then you put yourself at danger if attacked, especially of by several assailants. Pump shotguns are another story...too much to go into right now.



> I know how hard it is to miss a moving target with one shot (not with a shotgun
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, so what if you can run; what about older people, disabled people, injured people. What's good for you is not good or possible for everyone.



> I like my chances with someone that is unarmed that has come into my house. There is no way anyone could sneak up to me in my house...my dog goes nuts when anyone comes near the house...let alone enters it. So I have no fear of someone breaking into my house in the middle of the night and getting any kind of position on me. Norman just makes entirely too much noise.


Once again, good for you, but not everyone can afford or has time for a huge dog or even wants one. What's good for you is not good for everyone.



> If you are talking about someone on the street putting a gun to my head then sure...not much you can do about that...even if you just happen to be carrying a gun at the time.


Of course, that's true even for police.



> I have never been attacked in real life...so it is impossible to know how I would react...I am just relating what I know about weapons and people. I personally dont think they are a good form of home security...and given the mentality of many that own them...they can be more dangerous to the owner and their family then any criminal.


I can tell, b/c as I said, the things you've written don't jive with all the real-life stories that I've heard. And also, you keep relating this issue specifically to your situation, and not to all the different people in this country and how they can use/need a firearm.

You also don't hear about the hundreds or even thousands of people a month that defend themselves w/ a gun, b/c it's not in the media. Also, look at Katrina and the LA riots, and see how many people defended their homes & businesses from looters.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

As far as guns being dangerous to the family I find it very irresponsible for a gun owner not to have a proper safe and trigger locks especially if there are kids in the home. I don't have kids but I have a nice browning fire proof safe to store guns and valuebles. if you have guns no matter what type it is up to the owner to be responsible and educated and willing to face the consequences if god forbid an accidental shooting happened.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> As far as guns being dangerous to the family I find it very irresponsible for a gun owner not to have a proper safe and trigger locks especially if there are kids in the home. I don't have kids but I have a nice browning fire proof safe to store guns and valuebles. if you have guns no matter what type it is up to the owner to be responsible and educated and willing to face the consequences if god forbid an accidental shooting happened.


Agreed 100%


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> As far as guns being dangerous to the family I find it very irresponsible for a gun owner not to have a proper safe and trigger locks especially if there are kids in the home. I don't have kids but I have a nice browning fire proof safe to store guns and valuebles. if you have guns no matter what type it is up to the owner to be responsible and educated and willing to face the consequences if god forbid an accidental shooting happened.


Wow ! You mean you actually advocate individual responsibility as opposed to relying on the government to be a nanny and protect you from everything dangerous ?

A novel idea, indeed


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> I can tell, b/c as I said, the things you've written don't jive with all the real-life stories that I've heard. And also, you keep relating this issue specifically to your situation, and not to all the different people in this country and how they can use/need a firearm.
> 
> You also don't hear about the hundreds or even thousands of people a month that defend themselves w/ a gun, b/c it's not in the media. Also, look at Katrina and the LA riots, and see how many people defended their homes & businesses from looters.


Of course I am relating to my situation....it is the situation I am concerned with. I dont live in Compton so I cant talk about the situation there. I havent been mugged walking to the store so I cant relate to that situation. I can say that 99% of the people in this country that own weapons shouldnt. I can say that most of the people that own guns are more dangerous to the people they know and love then the mysterious criminal that breaks into their home with a shotgun. Have people defended themselves successfully with guns...of course...they have also used bats....so saying that people would be completely helpless without a gun is ignorant. If everyone that owned a gun was a mature responsible person then I would be fine with it...but unfortunately that is not the case.
As far as defending your home or business from looters...that is why I have insurance. Im not going to sit on my front porch with a gun watching the water rise....or sit in my store while a riot goes on all around me. Im out of there and I will settle up with the insurance company after it is said and done. And if you read the law...using bodily force to protect your property is illegal.

Oh...and really...like I said...I dont really care one way or the other. My life wont change either way.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> Of course I am relating to my situation....it is the situation I am concerned with. I dont live in Compton so I cant talk about the situation there. I havent been mugged walking to the store so I cant relate to that situation. I can say that 99% of the people in this country that own weapons shouldnt. I can say that most of the people that own guns are more dangerous to the people they know and love then the mysterious criminal that breaks into their home with a shotgun. Have people defended themselves successfully with guns...of course...they have also used bats....so saying that people would be completely helpless without a gun is ignorant. If everyone that owned a gun was a mature responsible person then I would be fine with it...but unfortunately that is not the case.
> As far as defending your home or business from looters...that is why I have insurance. Im not going to sit on my front porch with a gun watching the water rise....or sit in my store while a riot goes on all around me. Im out of there and I will settle up with the insurance company after it is said and done. And if you read the law...using bodily force to protect your property is illegal.
> 
> Oh...and really...like I said...I dont really care one way or the other. My life wont change either way.


But you simply can't only look at your own situation and make that the center of the universe for everyone else in this country and say that it doesn't concern you and therefore other people should not have the option. That's completely self centered, narrow minded and arrogant. No offense, of course.

You say that 99% of people who own guns shouldn't b/c they are more dangerous to the ones they love than criminals. Are you kidding? Did you have any idea that there are 70 million families in this country that own guns?? You'd be hearing many, many more stories of people killing their families of 99% of those people (63 Million Familes!!) were irresponsible with those guns. C'mon, get real!

And so you would just give up everything you own up to the criminals and be a victim, and then have the insurance co pay you back, and make yourself whole off of everyone's higher permiums. Nice, there's the perfect example of a liberal's mentality at work right there.

And not for nuthin, but a lot of insurance policies don't cover riots, so you'd lose everything because you think no one should have a gun to pretect themselves. Nice going, then you'd go on welfare to feed your family, and so also live off of everyone else.

So bottom line, your entire line of argumeent is based on your personal belief that no one should own a firearm, and has nothing to do with facts or our constitution or the right of self defense, etc. Finally, your true colors have come out.

And therefore, GG, you are amongst the people that we need to protect ourselves against - those that would disarm us and leave us defenseless.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

> But you simply can't only look at your own situation and make that the center of the universe for everyone else in this country and say that it doesn't concern you and therefore other people should not have the option. That's completely self centered, narrow minded and arrogant. No offense, of course.


Of course Im going to look at my situation. Like I said...I can not speak for people in different situations...that is why everyone is allowed to vote. I dont think it is narrow minded...I think it is being honest.


> You say that 99% of people who own guns shouldn't b/c they are more dangerous to the ones they love than criminals. Are you kidding? Did you have any idea that there are 70 million families in this country that own guns?? You'd be hearing many, many more stories of people killing their families of 99% of those people (63 Million Familes!!) were irresponsible with those guns. C'mon, get real!


You hear about gun violence all the time...so if everyone that owns a gun is so responsible...why the violence? Now granted...most of these people are probably not legal owners...however...if guns were illegal then the criminals woudnt have them either...right? You dont hear about gun violence in England do you?


> And so you would just give up everything you own up to the criminals and be a victim, and then have the insurance co pay you back, and make yourself whole off of everyone's higher permiums. Nice, there's the perfect example of a liberal's mentality at work right there.


I happen to believe that people are more important then objects...so yes...I would not kill someone that was trying to steal my car. I would not kill someone for trying to run off with my bbq. Would I try to stop them...sure...but if they had a gun...I would let them have it. And the higher premiums do not come from honest victims of crime...they come from idiot scammers that commit fraud in the billions every year...come on...educate your self on a topic before you attempt to use it against someone.


> And not for nuthin, but a lot of insurance policies don't cover riots, so you'd lose everything because you think no one should have a gun to pretect themselves. Nice going, then you'd go on welfare to feed your family, and so also live off of everyone else.


Interesting that I go from an educated, career oriented, home owning, tax payer to welfare recipient in the matter of hours.








If I live in an area prone to riots I would make sure my policy covered it or I would move. Just like I would not buy a trailer in tornado alley without proper insurance...because you know your going to loose it eventually.


> So bottom line, your entire line of argumeent is based on your personal belief that no one should own a firearm, and has nothing to do with facts or our constitution or the right of self defense, etc. Finally, your true colors have come out.


Not at all. My argument is that most of the people that have guns in the country are not responsible enough for me to entrust with my life. Given my situation...I would be better off if they were all banned. Im not speaking to eveyones situation...I would never be that bold. Having guns in this country is more dangerous for me then if we didnt have them. If you want all these guns legal..then vote to keep them legal. Pretty simple. And honestly...the topic doesnt mean enough for me to worry about it.


> And therefore, GG, you are amongst the people that we need to protect ourselves against - those that would disarm us and leave us defenseless.


And you sound like you are so paranoid of being attacked by some unknown force that you are probably building a bomb shelter as I type this......you ever see the movie Tremors? Remember Burt......are you Burt


----------



## NeXuS (Aug 16, 2006)

well put GG


----------



## spinalremains (Nov 10, 2006)

"The space ninjas are coming, the space ninjas are coming"....


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> Of course Im going to look at my situation. Like I said...I can not speak for people in different situations...that is why everyone is allowed to vote. I dont think it is narrow minded...I think it is being honest.


Sure it is; it's not the same as voting to cut taxes or increase school spending - you are voting to delete people's rights, leave them defenseless, and weaken the constitution. Big difference.



> You hear about gun violence all the time...so if everyone that owns a gun is so responsible...why the violence? Now granted...most of these people are probably not legal owners...however...if guns were illegal then the criminals woudnt have them either...right? You dont hear about gun violence in England do you?


Of course criminals will still have them - cocaine, marijuana, crack, meth are illegal. Do you think no one has these things b/c they are illegal? Do you think that guns would not still get smuggled into this country illegally? And even if they weren't by some freak act of God, do you think the murder rate would drop? It hasn't dropped in England nor Australia. The only thing that changed is that now they use more knives and bats.



> I happen to believe that people are more important then objects...so yes...I would not kill someone that was trying to steal my car. I would not kill someone for trying to run off with my bbq. Would I try to stop them


I do too, but if they are going to steal everything you own and worked your whole life to build then you should have the right to defend yourself and your livelihood.



> but if they had a gun...I would let them have it.


 O
f course you would, and you could NEVER fight back w/o one yourself. Actually, they wouldn't even need a gun - with a knife or if there were two of them then they would be able to do whatever they wanted if you DON'T have a gun.



> And the higher premiums do not come from honest victims of crime...they come from idiot scammers that commit fraud in the billions every year...come on...educate your self on a topic before you attempt to use it against someone.


Are you kidding?? Why the hell do you think car insurance is so much higher in some places than others? B/c in some places more people's cars get stolen, and therefore higher premiums! You are the one who needs to educate yourself on that...



> Interesting that I go from an educated, career oriented, home owning, tax payer to welfare recipient in the matter of hours.


Um, yes, quite easily & possibly, if everything you have is tied up in your business and you lose it all to a riot, of course you can!



> If I live in an area prone to riots I would make sure my policy covered it or I would move. Just like I would not buy a trailer in tornado alley without proper insurance...because you know your going to loose it eventually.


Oh yeah? And how the hell do you know when & where a riot is gonna happen? Think those people in L.A. knew that a riot would happen after Rodney King? Just b/c one had happened decades earlier?? No Way! And people in Florida should have known there would be looters after Hurricane Andrew?? NO WAY!! And people in New Orleans should have known there would be looters and rapists after Katrina? NO WAY!! Do you have a crystal ball that told you these things were gonna happen?? That's the thing - you never know when or where thigs like that will strike. I can't believe how naive you are...



> Not at all. My argument is that most of the people that have guns in the country are not responsible enough for me to entrust with my life. Given my situation...I would be better off if they were all banned. Im not speaking to eveyones situation...I would never be that bold. Having guns in this country is more dangerous for me then if we didnt have them. If you want all these guns legal..then vote to keep them legal. Pretty simple. And honestly...the topic doesnt mean enough for me to worry about it.
> 
> And you sound like you are so paranoid of being attacked by some unknown force that you are probably building a bomb shelter as I type this......you ever see the movie Tremors? Remember Burt......are you Burt


Nope, never seen it, and for you to think that most of the people in this country with guns can't be trusted with them, then that makes YOU sound like the real paranoid one. The proof is in the numbers - 70 million homes and over 200 million firearms says a lot about the saftey record. Accidents will happen; that's whay they are called accidents, but the percentage is miniscule.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

keep in mind a few things, guys. the faster you can fire rounds downrange, the less accurate you are. i will promise you, give me a 30-30 and i'll be waaaaaaaaay more acurate than with an AK-47. i won't need to spray bullets because the first bullet will put down my target. that's why you don't see a lot of SPECWAR or SWAT or SERT operators looking for a full auto sniperweapon. that's why most operators (with the execption of the SAW Gunner) only fire 3 round bursts. so having a gun that fires more slowly doesn't mak you safer. i realize that the average American isn't an operator but basic physics still apply and the faster you fire, the less accurate you'll be.

second, (and i KNOW it's been said before) but look at what Jewlz said. the key to this problem is INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. laws won't solve the problem because multiple murderers don't care about a gun beef. not if they're about to mow down ten or twenty people. i have a 30-30 locked and loaded in my bedroom right right now. the safety's on and i don't have any children so i know that my gun's only going to hurt the turd (or deer if i'm lucky) i happen to be pointing it at.

my worthless .02 anyway.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

mdrs said:


> keep in mind a few things, guys. the faster you can fire rounds downrange, the less accurate you are. i will promise you, give me a 30-30 and i'll be waaaaaaaaay more acurate than with an AK-47. i won't need to spray bullets because the first bullet will put down my target. that's why you don't see a lot of SPECWAR or SWAT or SERT operators looking for a full auto sniperweapon. that's why most operators (with the execption of the SAW Gunner) only fire 3 round bursts. so having a gun that fires more slowly doesn't mak you safer. i realize that the average American isn't an operator but basic physics still apply and the faster you fire, the less accurate you'll be.
> 
> second, (and i KNOW it's been said before) but look at what Jewlz said. the key to this problem is INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. laws won't solve the problem because multiple murderers don't care about a gun beef. not if they're about to mow down ten or twenty people. i have a 30-30 locked and loaded in my bedroom right right now. the safety's on and i don't have any children so i know that my gun's only going to hurt the turd (or deer if i'm lucky) i happen to be pointing it at.
> 
> my worthless .02 anyway.


All great points. And the antis will be gunning for your lever action one day, too...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Scrap5000 said:


> keep in mind a few things, guys. the faster you can fire rounds downrange, the less accurate you are. i will promise you, give me a 30-30 and i'll be waaaaaaaaay more acurate than with an AK-47. i won't need to spray bullets because the first bullet will put down my target. that's why you don't see a lot of SPECWAR or SWAT or SERT operators looking for a full auto sniperweapon. that's why most operators (with the execption of the SAW Gunner) only fire 3 round bursts. so having a gun that fires more slowly doesn't mak you safer. i realize that the average American isn't an operator but basic physics still apply and the faster you fire, the less accurate you'll be.
> 
> second, (and i KNOW it's been said before) but look at what Jewlz said. the key to this problem is INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. laws won't solve the problem because multiple murderers don't care about a gun beef. not if they're about to mow down ten or twenty people. i have a 30-30 locked and loaded in my bedroom right right now. the safety's on and i don't have any children so i know that my gun's only going to hurt the turd (or deer if i'm lucky) i happen to be pointing it at.
> 
> my worthless .02 anyway.


All great points. And the antis will be gunning for your lever action one day, too...
[/quote]

i'd thought of that. that's why i'm bolt action all the way. just as fast IMHO and more FUN.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

mdrs said:


> i'd thought of that. that's why i'm bolt action all the way. just as fast IMHO and more FUN.


Ha, they will come for those after the lever actions...then the double barrels, then the single shot, then the bloackpowder, etc etc etc....

JOIN JOIN JOIN THE NRA IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY!!


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

Actually Iraq is an excellent example. If the Kurds had been disarmed, Saddam would have wiped them out 20 years ago. Even as it was, artillery, tanks, choppers, chemical weapons, they took a hard beating, but Saddam was never able to defeat them, and never really had solid control over the north.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

This qoute sums it up best for me:

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." --Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Scrappy said:


> This qoute sums it up best for me:
> 
> "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." --Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)


I love it. And Maddyfish's example of Iraq as well.

GG, I've been thinking about what you said yesterday, about how 99% of the gun owners out there can't be trusted & shouldn't have guns. And I realized, there are more than a few gun owners on this site:

Me
JD7.62
Scrappy
Xenon
Tink
mdrs
06 C6
Flashover
AK Skirmish
Roundhead
hitler
xt 12ap

That's at least 12 of us. And by your calculations, 99% of us = 11.88 of us who should not have guns.

So according to you, NONE of us should have guns, because we can't be trusted and are irresponsible.

Not sure how the rest of us feel, but I don't agree with you at all.


----------



## flashover00 (Oct 19, 2006)

Scrap5000 said:


> This qoute sums it up best for me:
> 
> "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." --Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)


I love it. And Maddyfish's example of Iraq as well.

GG, I've been thinking about what you said yesterday, about how 99% of the gun owners out there can't be trusted & shouldn't have guns. And I realized, there are more than a few gun owners on this site:

Me
JD7.62
Scrappy
Xenon
Tink
mdrs
06 C6
Flashover
AK Skirmish
Roundhead
hitler
xt 12ap

That's at least 12 of us. And by your calculations, 99% of us = 11.88 of us who should not have guns.

So according to you, NONE of us should have guns, because we can't be trusted and are irresponsible.

Not sure how the rest of us feel, but I don't agree with you at all.
[/quote]

LOL....ok listen. Its not that the government is banning ALL types of firearms here, its about the governments ability to limit those types of firearms.

I know the 2nd amendment says " right to bear arms" but clearly the framers didnt have the foresight to realize that arms 200+ years later would mean such weapons as the UZI and Tek 9
I understand the argument that you are making "well if they take these then they will soon be after everything and we'll have nothing left"....
But that is ridiculous and paranoid.

There has to be limits on the rights that we have....
FOR EXAMPLE 
We have the right to free speech. Its clear and written in unambiguous language that we have this right. 
BUT...
You cant exactly walk into a movie theatre and yell BOMB expecting the veil of the constitution to protect you. There has to be limits on free speech and one just happens to be threats.

The ban that you are bitching about is just an example of a limit being imposed......They will never come for every gun that you own because that is unrealistic. There would be too many secondary effects from an all encompassing ban on firearms that you are stressing.

Anyway, im saying all this as a card carrying member of the NRA and as a firearm owner.
I own a 12 gauge, a 20 guage break open and .308 winchester. I use them for hunting and clay pigeon shooting and thats about it man...
I am in no way worried that the government is comming for my freakin shotgun someday

I like that you are promoting the National Rifle Association because they do many good things of which the benefits far outweigh the membership fee.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

flashover00 said:


> This qoute sums it up best for me:
> 
> "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." --Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)


I love it. And Maddyfish's example of Iraq as well.

GG, I've been thinking about what you said yesterday, about how 99% of the gun owners out there can't be trusted & shouldn't have guns. And I realized, there are more than a few gun owners on this site:

Me
JD7.62
Scrappy
Xenon
Tink
mdrs
06 C6
Flashover
AK Skirmish
Roundhead
hitler
xt 12ap

That's at least 12 of us. And by your calculations, 99% of us = 11.88 of us who should not have guns.

So according to you, NONE of us should have guns, because we can't be trusted and are irresponsible.

Not sure how the rest of us feel, but I don't agree with you at all.
[/quote]

LOL....ok listen. Its not that the government is banning ALL types of firearms here, its about the governments ability to limit those types of firearms.

I know the 2nd amendment says " right to bear arms" but clearly the framers didnt have the foresight to realize that arms 200+ years later would mean such weapons as the UZI and Tek 9
I understand the argument that you are making "well if they take these then they will soon be after everything and we'll have nothing left"....
But that is ridiculous and paranoid.

There has to be limits on the rights that we have....
FOR EXAMPLE 
We have the right to free speech. Its clear and written in unambiguous language that we have this right. 
BUT...
You cant exactly walk into a movie theatre and yell BOMB expecting the veil of the constitution to protect you. There has to be limits on free speech and one just happens to be threats.

The ban that you are bitching about is just an example of a limit being imposed......They will never come for every gun that you own because that is unrealistic. There would be too many secondary effects from an all encompassing ban on firearms that you are stressing.

Anyway, im saying all this as a card carrying member of the NRA and as a firearm owner.
I own a 12 gauge, a 20 guage break open and .308 winchester. I use them for hunting and clay pigeon shooting and thats about it man...
I am in no way worried that the government is comming for my freakin shotgun someday

I like that you are promoting the National Rifle Association because they do many good things of which the benefits far outweigh the membership fee. 
[/quote]

i like that people always say the constitution needs to be interpreted "because the founding fathers couldn't have known". i love that. the part about the 2nd ammendment you forgot to post is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". it doesn't take a rocket scientist to forsee that weapons tech would evolve. i'm sure they realized that as well. my question is who gets to decide what fat gets trimmed off the constitution? more and more this country gets away from the ideals that founded it and it's because of logic like this.

and you didn't answer the argument that most don't. if you're about to mow down a few people in a shooting, will you stop because of the gun laws in your area? if you're breaking the laws already, why would a gun charge matter? the law only hurts those who abide by it.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

flashover00 said:


> The ban that you are bitching about is just an example of a limit being imposed......They will never come for every gun that you own because that is unrealistic. There would be too many secondary effects from an all encompassing ban on firearms that you are stressing.


That's exactly the kind of thinking that the antis are hoping we will have...and that way they can take em all, one type at a time.

You think it can't happen? Look at England....look at Australia. Foreign countries, meaningless to the US, you say? Then look at New Orleans. The cops went house to house, disarming citizens of ALL firearms that were using to protect their homes from looters and rapists. And to this day, the city still has not returned all of them, even after having been found in contempt of court TWICE for non-compliance with the court order to return all of the guns they seized.

Clearly - _ CRYSTAL _ clearly, it CAN happen, because it HAS happenned.


----------



## flashover00 (Oct 19, 2006)

> i like that people always say the constitution needs to be interpreted "because the founding fathers couldn't have known". i love that. the part about the 2nd ammendment you forgot to post is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". it doesn't take a rocket scientist to forsee that weapons tech would evolve. i'm sure they realized that as well. my question is who gets to decide what fat gets trimmed off the constitution? more and more this country gets away from the ideals that founded it and it's because of logic like this.
> 
> and you didn't answer the argument that most don't. if you're about to mow down a few people in a shooting, will you stop because of the gun laws in your area? if you're breaking the laws already, why would a gun charge matter? the law only hurts those who abide by it.


Are you kidding? 
If you took the constitution as a document and literally applied every provision you would have anarchy in todays world. Now im not a strict believer that the constitution is a living document that constantly needs interpretation, but im also not a believer that the document should be applied at face value in every instance.

Look at the last 200+ years of supreme court decisions....its a history of interpreting a document that needs to be interpreted as time changes and our culture evolves.
Even the current justices that consider themselves to be strict readers of the constitution do have to interpret the document from time to time....i'll give you the cites if you want to read the cases.

I, however, do think that this is one provision that does deserve some interpretation...especially since most lawmaker, lawyers and judges cant agree on what the hell the amendment is really trying to say. With militia, without militia, by itself blah blah blah.....its debatable and ive seen it debated by a panel of circuit judges and law professors.

Honestly, my right to bear arms(which i do believe in to a point) is seriously low on the list of rights that im concerned with being "trimmed like excess fat"....

and to answer the question that most dont.....the law is not just a deterrent. There is more to banning certain weapons than just preventing their use!!! if it was just about deterence then it would be the biggest waste of time ever because like you said, the shooter about to kill a dozen people isnt going to check his weapon to make sure that its not on the list.
I would imagine that the government has a compelling interest in keeping these certain types of weapons off the street....if you and i cant own them then thats one less place the weapon can come from.



> That's exactly the kind of thinking that the antis are hoping we will have...and that way they can take em all, one type at a time.
> 
> You think it can't happen? Look at England....look at Australia. Foreign countries, meaningless to the US, you say? Then look at New Orleans. The cops went house to house, disarming citizens of ALL firearms that were using to protect their homes from looters and rapists. And to this day, the city still has not returned all of them, even after having been found in contempt of court TWICE for non-compliance with the court order to return all of the guns they seized.
> 
> Clearly - CRYSTAL clearly, it CAN happen, because it HAS happenned.


yeah its a big conspiracy man......the antis are comming the antis are comming

England is not the US....Australia is not the US......

New Orleans...you just proved my point. The court ruled in favor of the firearm owners....they ordered them returned.....they said the cops messed up and violated constitutional rights......THE SYSTEM WORKS They will get their property back.....its just unfortunate that its taking way too long..who knows, the cops down there were corrupt as sh*t during that tragedy, maybe they sold the guns?

The day that local police officers go door to door confiscating every firearm in the entire nation will never come...ease up


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

flashover00 said:


> yeah its a big conspiracy man......the antis are comming the antis are comming
> 
> England is not the US....Australia is not the US......
> 
> ...


Never say never, because that's a very naive thing to do. Time and time again the unexpected is exactly what happens.

The system works? Are you kidding? Tell that to the people that were left defenseless when their guns were seized. Tell that to the peace-abiding citizens who were thrown in jail for admitting they had a LEGAL firearm and were using it for self defense. Tell that to all the citizens that still haven't gotten their firearms back & are still possibly defenseless all this time later.

"The cops were so corrupt that maybe the cops sold the guns?" Are you kidding me? That line of argument makes no sense other than to EXACTLY prove MY point: That's exactly what the 2nd Amendment was made to protect us from - a corrupt government!! And they should never have taken the guns to begin with!! Then there would be no worry that the guns were sold off & that's why they have not been returned...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> That's at least 12 of us. And by your calculations, 99% of us = 11.88 of us who should not have guns.
> 
> So according to you, NONE of us should have guns, because we can't be trusted and are irresponsible.
> 
> Not sure how the rest of us feel, but I don't agree with you at all.


You just dont know how to accept that our opinions differ do you.









How does my saying 99% of people that own weapons shouldnt, have any effect on the members of this site? How many guns are illegal or unregistered in the country? How many depressed/ignorant/immature/racist/unstable/abusive/ people legally own guns in the country? The way you talk...everyone that owns a gun can handle that reponsibility....and I dont agree.

So do the math and tell me what percentage of mature, responsible, law abiding people own guns out of the total number of guns in circulation in the US. My number might be off...who knows...but I would be willing to bet that the ratio of guns in the hands of people they shouldnt be....outweighs the number of guns in the hands of people that can handle that kind of responsibility.

Oh..and while your at it..why dont you pimp the NRA again....


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

I just don't understand why some Americans feel the need to protect themself from their own governement that they elected....doesn't make any sense to me. You're not living under a totalitarian regime as far as I'm concerned. I can understand why your ancestors created the 2nd amendment back in those days but nowadays , I believe it's outdated. Do you really think that your semi auto weapons would force the us army to back off in case of a civil war ?


----------



## flashover00 (Oct 19, 2006)

Scrap5000 said:


> yeah its a big conspiracy man......the antis are comming the antis are comming
> 
> England is not the US....Australia is not the US......
> 
> ...


Never say never, because that's a very naive thing to do. Time and time again the unexpected is exactly what happens.

The system works? Are you kidding? Tell that to the people that were left defenseless when their guns were seized. Tell that to the peace-abiding citizens who were thrown in jail for admitting they had a LEGAL firearm and were using it for self defense. Tell that to all the citizens that still haven't gotten their firearms back & are still possibly defenseless all this time later.

"The cops were so corrupt that maybe the cops sold the guns?" Are you kidding me? That line of argument makes no sense other than to EXACTLY prove MY point: That's exactly what the 2nd Amendment was made to protect us from - a corrupt government!! And they should never have taken the guns to begin with!! Then there would be no worry that the guns were sold off & that's why they have not been returned...
[/quote]

It will never happen...not in our lifetime and not in our childrens lifetime
There are too many indirect effects that would occur if a full ban devleoped.....

Katrina is a horrible example for any 2nd amendment argument......look at the situation. If you were in charge of the police in New Orleans after the storm hit, and you were told that people were resorting to defending themselves and their property with their personal firearms, WOULD YOU JUST SIT BACK AND SAY 
"oh its ok, they're just exercising their 2nd amendment rights so there is no need for the police to get involved here in this situation"
WOULD YOU JUST DISMISS IT AND ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO HANDLE EVERYTHING THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!???

No...you wouldnt. and neither would anyone else....they would go to the scene, arrest people, disarm people out of the need to restore order and provide safety. 
A lot of f'ed up things happened down their as a result of that storm, and the police removing firearms from people in an effort to save the area from becomming a flashback to wild west times is the least important.
It wasnt the government attempting to be corrupt!! If anything it was a few cops caught up in a one of a kind situation 
..and it went to court....and the people won....and they secured a judgment and TWO court orders to have their weapons returned....like i said the system worked 
Katrina wasnt government tyranny.....it was a freakin natural tragedy.



> So do the math and tell me what percentage of mature, responsible, law abiding people own guns out of the total number of guns in circulation in the US. My number might be off...who knows...but I would be willing to bet that the ratio of guns in the hands of people they shouldnt be....outweighs the number of guns in the hands of people that can handle that kind of responsibility.


i know many many people that own firearms and to be honest with you, about half of them are mentally stable and competent to own. The rest i wouldnt want driving a car let alone possessing ammunition.

Back in my hometown about 15 years ago, some married couple got into a squabble early morning on a school day. The wife went to the elementary school around lunch time to remove their child from school and leave town.....the husband showed up while they were walking out of the front of the building and blew the wife's head off with a pump action 12 guage.
Then he shot himself in front of his kid....

There was one person to add to the calculations...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

flashover00 said:


> i know many many people that own firearms and to be honest with you, about half of them are mentally stable and competent to own. The rest i wouldnt want driving a car let alone possessing ammunition.
> 
> Back in my hometown about 15 years ago, some married couple got into a squabble early morning on a school day. The wife went to the elementary school around lunch time to remove their child from school and leave town.....the husband showed up while they were walking out of the front of the building and blew the wife's head off with a pump action 12 guage.
> Then he shot himself in front of his kid....
> ...


My gf's brother-in-law blew his head off with a shotgun because he suffered from deep depression. Girl I dated in hs...her brother blew his head off with a shotgun..not sure the reason....but obviously he had some issues. So two more legal gun owners to add to the calculation


----------



## spinalremains (Nov 10, 2006)

Serial killer wayne nance killed my mom's cousin and his wife back in 1985. He was a legal gun owner...


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2007)

One thing I dont understand is why people get some angry over this amendament being "attacked" but not the other 9 in the Bill of Rights? I mean, surely holding people in jail because they may or may not have links to terrorists is an attack on the Bill of Rights? I saw a while back on the Buffalo News that people had been forced to say a Christian prayer before each city meeting (part of the tradition?) or something like that, and were kicked off the board when they didnt. Just doesnt make much sense to me.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

spinalremains said:


> Serial killer wayne nance killed my mom's cousin and his wife back in 1985. He was a legal gun owner...


So if he didn't have a legal gun.. what, he would have given them flowers instead?

My cousin was stabbed. Should we make knives illegal?


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2007)

Scrap5000 said:


> I just don't understand why some Americans feel the need to protect themself from their own governement that they elected....doesn't make any sense to me. You're not living under a totalitarian regime as far as I'm concerned. I can understand why your ancestors created the 2nd amendment back in those days but nowadays , I believe it's outdated. Do you really think that your semi auto weapons would force the us army to back off in case of a civil war ?


Exactly! I think its just a different mindset up here man.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

CichlidAddict said:


> Serial killer wayne nance killed my mom's cousin and his wife back in 1985. He was a legal gun owner...


So if he didn't have a legal gun.. what, he would have given them flowers instead?

My cousin was stabbed. Should we make knives illegal?
[/quote]
I think the point is that not all legal gun owners are upstanding citizens that some would have you believe in this discussion.

Contrary to popular belief...I really dont care if weapons are legal or not...I just find it funny that people get so worked up when there is any discussion about limiting the guns available to the public. They still are afforded the right to own firearms to protect themselves and their family....but they start whining because they cant set up a 60mm firing position in their front yard.


----------



## spinalremains (Nov 10, 2006)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Serial killer wayne nance killed my mom's cousin and his wife back in 1985. He was a legal gun owner...


So if he didn't have a legal gun.. what, he would have given them flowers instead?

My cousin was stabbed. Should we make knives illegal?
[/quote]
I think the point is that not all legal gun owners are upstanding citizens that some would have you believe in this discussion.

Contrary to popular belief...I really dont care if weapons are legal or not...I just find it funny that people get so worked up when there is any discussion about limiting the guns available to the public. They still are afforded the right to own firearms to protect themselves and their family....but they start whining because they cant set up a 60mm firing position in their front yard.
[/quote]
Exactly my point.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

> You just dont know how to accept that our opinions differ do you.


Opinions are one thing, facts are another. Facts of 70 million homes & 230 million firearms means we'd ALL be dead if all thse guns (or 99% as you state) were being used irresponsibly. Do you know more people who are alive & well, or more people who are dead from gun accidents? Hellloooooo....



> How does my saying 99% of people that own weapons shouldnt, have any effect on the members of this site? How many guns are illegal or unregistered in the country? How many depressed/ignorant/immature/racist/unstable/abusive/ people legally own guns in the country? The way you talk...everyone that owns a gun can handle that reponsibility....and I dont agree.


It's straight math and logic. You say "99% of everyone who owns shouldn't". Therefore of the 12 I listed, you are saying 99% shouldn't own. I never said everyone that owns is responsible. I only said it's not anywhere near the 1% that you claim. I've said criminals should not own, mentally insane people should not own, etc. So please don't put words in my mouth.



> So do the math and tell me what percentage of mature, responsible, law abiding people own guns out of the total number of guns in circulation in the US. My number might be off...who knows...but I would be willing to bet that the ratio of guns in the hands of people they shouldnt be....outweighs the number of guns in the hands of people that can handle that kind of responsibility.


See my reply above - if you know more people alive than people who have been killed by firearm accidents, then obviously the ratio supports my theory that most owners are responsible. Otherwise, with 230 million firearms out there, we'd all be dead by now.



> Oh..and while your at it..why dont you pimp the NRA again....


Don't mind if I do: JOIN JOIN JOIN the NRA to prtotect your rights and to fight people who think like GG does!



matc said:


> I just don't understand why some Americans feel the need to protect themself from their own governement that they elected....doesn't make any sense to me. You're not living under a totalitarian regime as far as I'm concerned. I can understand why your ancestors created the 2nd amendment back in those days but nowadays , I believe it's outdated. Do you really think that your semi auto weapons would force the us army to back off in case of a civil war ?


Because we understand the possibility of what can happen. It's not always only "What are things like right now?". It's also "What COULD it become like in the future?"

That's simple preparedness, level headed, clear sighted, rational thinking. Not paranoia. You may think it's outdated probably because you might not be able to think far enough ahead.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

flashover00 said:


> Exactly! I think its just a different mindset up here man.


Yep, a liberal, socialist one...exactly what the Antis are like...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> > You just dont know how to accept that our opinions differ do you.
> 
> 
> Opinions are one thing, facts are another. Facts of 70 million homes & 230 million firearms means we'd ALL be dead if all thse guns (or 99% as you state) were being used irresponsibly. Do you know more people who are alive & well, or more people who are dead from gun accidents? Hellloooooo....


The only people I know personally that own guns are police officers...so for civilians...I know more dead then alive.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> The only people I know personally that own guns are police officers...so for civilians...I know more dead then alive.


That argument makes no sense whatsoever. The whole population of the U.S. would be wiped out if 99% of gun owners were irresponsible, whether or not you personally know the owners. So every single person you've ever seen alive, on tv, in movies, etc etc etc is a person you must count.

And that would add up to tens of millions.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2007)

Liberal and socialist...and 10 times less murders per capita. We are also ranked as the 6th best country to live in


----------



## spinalremains (Nov 10, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Liberal and socialist...and 10 times less murders per capita. We are also ranked as the 6th best country to live in


That is a valid point. It has to say something of our society.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

spinalremains said:


> Liberal and socialist...and 10 times less murders per capita. We are also ranked as the 6th best country to live in


That is a valid point. It has to say something of our society.
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong - I wish most Americans were as friendly as most Canadians and had as much respect for each other. Too many reasons for the way a lot of American citizens are, the violence in this country, etc etc to list. There was no slavery, no civil war, no segregation, etc etc to brew the pot like here. But that's a whole other debate.

But at the same time, you are also pretty defenseless, which is not a good thing to be.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> The only people I know personally that own guns are police officers...so for civilians...I know more dead then alive.


That argument makes no sense whatsoever. The whole population of the U.S. would be wiped out if 99% of gun owners were irresponsible, whether or not you personally know the owners. So every single person you've ever seen alive, on tv, in movies, etc etc etc is a person you must count.

And that would add up to tens of millions.[/quote]
[/quote]
You asked me who I knew and I told you. 


> Do you know more people who are alive & well, or more people who are dead from gun accidents? Hellloooooo....


Now you want me to speculate on who owns guns of the actors I have seen in movies? Um...isnt that a little insane? I mean really...then I would need to compare every report of a robbery, suicide, murder that a gun was used..vs...everyone walking down the street that "might" have a gun?

Your loosing it dude


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2007)

Scrap5000 said:


> Liberal and socialist...and 10 times less murders per capita. We are also ranked as the 6th best country to live in


That is a valid point. It has to say something of our society.
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong - I wish most Americans were as friendly as most Canadians and had as much respect for each other. Too many reasons for the way a lot of American citizens are, the violence in this country, etc etc to list. There was no slavery, no civil war, no segregation, etc etc to brew the pot like here. But that's a whole other debate.

But at the same time, you are also pretty defenseless, which is not a good thing to be.
[/quote]

Defenseless from what? We may not have the best, but we have a very competant military and police force.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Did I? I dont ever remember saying that. What I said was:
> 
> 
> > Im far from being libral...but I couldnt care less if all guns were banned.
> ...


Really?? Well maybe I misunderstood what you were saying when you said on page 5:



> I can say that 99% of the people in this country that own weapons shouldnt.


And about voting against guns b/c of your own situation, also on page 5:



> *Of course Im going to look at my situation*. Like I said...I can not speak for people in different situations...*that is why everyone is allowed to vote.* I dont think it is narrow minded...I think it is being honest.


So, with those statements, you weren't saying that you would vote to ban all guns, since 99% of the people that have them actually shouldn't? Because it sure sounded like that's what you meant.



> Now you want me to speculate on who owns guns of the actors I have seen in movies? Um...isnt that a little insane? I mean really...then I would need to compare every report of a robbery, suicide, murder that a gun was used..vs...everyone walking down the street that "might" have a gun?
> 
> Your loosing it dude


You misunderstand. You don't have to know who has a gun & who doesn't. Let me explain it to you more simply: If 99% of the people that own the 230 million guns were indeed irresponsible, as you claim they are, then innocent people would be getting killed by the millions. Almost everyone you know would have been killed by a firearms accident, either with their own gun, or a friend's, or a strangers, since there are about 250 million people in the US, so that's only about one firearm accident per gun. However, since no where near 230 million people have been killed (i.e. there hasn't been even ONE accident PER gun) then I'd say you are 100% wrong about 99% of the gun owners being irresponsible.

I don't know how else to explain it to make you understand...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> You misunderstand. You don't have to know who has a gun & who doesn't. Let me explain it to you more simply: If 99% of the people that own the 230 million guns were indeed irresponsible, as you claim they are, then innocent people would be getting killed by the millions. Almost everyone you know would have been killed by a firearms accident, either with their own gun, or a friend's, or a strangers, since there are about 250 million people in the US, so that's only about one firearm accident per gun. However, since no where near 230 million people have been killed (i.e. there hasn't been even ONE accident PER gun) then I'd say you are 100% wrong about 99% of the gun owners being irresponsible.
> 
> I don't know how else to explain it to make you understand...


Are you really that simple? I mean really.....is this how you picture this complex world?

So according to your logic...everyone that drives a car is a good driver? Because in order to not be a good driver you would have to actually killed someone with your car. 
Being an irresponsible gun owner doesnt mean you have killed anyone. How many times do these upstanding gun owners leave their weapon loaded? Or walk around with the safety off? Or walk around with their finger on the trigger? Or point the gun..loaded or not..in the direction of a person? Or leave their weapon unlocked? Or stand in front of the mirror and play like they are dirty harry? Just because people dont die from idiot gun owners doesnt make their actions any less dangerous to the people around them. Hell...I was around hundreds of people trained to be responsible with their weapon and they still acted like idiots with a loaded weapon. 
So..in a perfect world...everyone that owned a gun would be educated about the weapon and give it the respect it deserves. I happen to know that isnt the case.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> So, with those statements, you weren't saying that you would vote to ban all guns, since 99% of the people that have them actually shouldn't? Because it sure sounded like that's what you meant.


No...and again..if you would actually read what I wrote and not get overly emotional about this issue you would see where I said the issue doesnt mean that much to me.....so I will leave the voting and lobbying to the people like you that get so worked up over it. I dont care one way or the other....and why....because it wont effect how I live my life. It will make life more dangerous for my family because of some of the idiots carrying guns...but it wont change the fact that I dont carry a gun so if they get outlawed....I couldnt care less.


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Liberal and socialist...and 10 times less murders per capita. We are also ranked as the 6th best country to live in


That is a valid point. It has to say something of our society.
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong - I wish most Americans were as friendly as most Canadians and had as much respect for each other. Too many reasons for the way a lot of American citizens are, the violence in this country, etc etc to list. There was no slavery, no civil war, no segregation, etc etc to brew the pot like here. But that's a whole other debate.

But at the same time, you are also pretty defenseless, which is not a good thing to be.
[/quote]

Defenseless from what? We may not have the best, but we have a very competant military and police force.
[/quote]
I agree with you 100% Danny.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> No...and again..if you would actually read what I wrote and not get overly emotional about this issue you would see where I said the issue doesnt mean that much to me.....so I will leave the voting and lobbying to the people like you that get so worked up over it. I dont care one way or the other....and why....because it wont effect how I live my life. It will make life more dangerous for my family because of some of the idiots carrying guns...but it wont change the fact that I dont carry a gun so if they get outlawed....I couldnt care less.


Emotional? I'd prefer a much more specific description of my stance: Passionate.









So you would not vote to ban all guns? Good, I wish you would have said that earlier. LOL


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Cars are not specifically created to kill things...however...when you mess up enough times they take your license..which prevents you from legally driving a car. Removing someones privileges from a range or having your friends refuse to hunt with you doesnt prevent someone from legally firing a weapon. People that are not safe with weapons at a range should have their ability to possess a weapon taken away until they pass the required tests...not just be removed from the range. If you really want to make gun owner ship accepted in this society by more people...then self policing with tougher punishments is required. 
Dont you think it makes sense that before anyone can legally purchase or fire a weapon that they be required to attend class's and pass a test about gun safety?

People need to go through more to get a drivers license then a gun permit in this country.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Cars are not specifically created to kill things...however...when you mess up enough times they take your license..which prevents you from legally driving a car. Removing someones privileges from a range or having your friends refuse to hunt with you doesnt prevent someone from legally firing a weapon. People that are not safe with weapons at a range should have their ability to possess a weapon taken away until they pass the required tests...not just be removed from the range. If you really want to make gun owner ship accepted in this society by more people...then self policing with tougher punishments is required.
> Dont you think it makes sense that before anyone can legally purchase or fire a weapon that they be required to attend class's and pass a test about gun safety?
> 
> People need to go through more to get a drivers license then a gun permit in this country.


If you pass whatever requirements are needed to drive in your state then the state trusts that you can drive a car. Screw up and you can't drive anymore. The driving analogy is similar to gun ownership. If you have a history of mental illness or have committed a crime where you lose the right to own a firearm then you can't purchase a firearm.

I think I understand where you're coming from. It sounds like you want people to have training to own a firearm. But who pays for that training? If it's the gun owner, why should they have to pay to exercise a right? Besides, you'll see crazy legislation from states like California where they'll just make the cost of training so high, only a few would be able to own a firearm. On the other hand, getting the state to pay for it is a hard sell.

Now when it comes to limiting firearms that are available today, I completely disagree with you. Automatic weapons are already illegal unless you have an extremely hard to get license. I see no reason to ban semi-auto's, which make up a vast majority of firearms on the market today. I think it's just as important that someone buying a home protection or CCW weapon be able to buy something that's effective. If grandpa has to deal with multiple threats at one time, a single shot weapon will do him no good.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Scrappy said:


> If you pass whatever requirements are needed to drive in your state then the state trusts that you can drive a car. Screw up and you can't drive anymore. The driving analogy is similar to gun ownership. If you have a history of mental illness or have committed a crime where you lose the right to own a firearm then you can't purchase a firearm.


I dont think taking a written exam for driving a car..and then a drivers test should qualify you to own a firearm....to me that is like taking a scuba certification class and then being allowed to free fall unaided for your first skydive.
However I do see your point.


> I think I understand where you're coming from. It sounds like you want people to have training to own a firearm. But who pays for that training? If it's the gun owner, why should they have to pay to exercise a right? Besides, you'll see crazy legislation from states like California where they'll just make the cost of training so high, only a few would be able to own a firearm. On the other hand, getting the state to pay for it is a hard sell.


I think you could run it just like they do for your drivers license...which is relatively inexpensive. It costs $5.00 to take the written test in Oregon. You pass a written test, then you do a comprehensive safety course at your local range to get your owners permit. I dont think that is too much to ask.


> Now when it comes to limiting firearms that are available today, I completely disagree with you. Automatic weapons are already illegal unless you have an extremely hard to get license. I see no reason to ban semi-auto's, which make up a vast majority of firearms on the market today. I think it's just as important that someone buying a home protection or CCW weapon be able to buy something that's effective. If grandpa has to deal with multiple threats at one time, a single shot weapon will do him no good.


I would feel much better about the weapons in play..if it were more difficult to get a owners permit.

Wow...did we just have an adult conversation on this subject? Thanks Scrappy


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

There is a lot more training needed to operate a car safely than is needed to operate a gun safely.

1. Treat every gun as if loaded

2. Never point it at anything you don't intend or mind destroying

3. Never place your finger on the trigger until ready to fire

These three top rules, and 7 more basic ones, will carry you very far. Try operating a car safely with such simplicity.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2007)

1. Right is gas.

2. Left is brake.

3. Dont hit people


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> 1. Right is gas.
> 
> 2. Left is brake.
> 
> ...


Ha, that was funny









But seriously, much easier to not pull a trigger and keep it pointed safely than to do everything that it takes to operate a car...


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2007)

Scrap5000 said:


> 1. Right is gas.
> 
> 2. Left is brake.
> 
> ...


Ha, that was funny









[/quote]

It wasnt a joke man, I read it in the "How to be a woman" guide at Chapters.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

If guns are so bad and hurt so many people then why when I go to the state games and the state trap shoot and my 3 nights of leagues a week have I never seen or hear of some being shot or injured, this includes the high school trap shoots where the shooters are 14-18 years old.

the only injury I've heard of or gotten is blood blisters and that's after shooting 500+ round of trap in a day with 95 degree temps.

its all about being responsible and educated.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Guru said:


> Defenseless from what? We may not have the best, but we have a very competant military and police force.


I agree with you 100% Danny.
[/quote]

Are you kidding? Your border guards have been screaming complaints for years about not being armed, threatening to quit if they don't get armed, etc. Now, finally, your govt had decided to spend...wait for it... wait for it...[Dr. Evil voice] ONE BILLION DOLLARS [/voice] to arm & train them.

As I said, defenseless.:laugh:


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2007)

Scrap, you missed the point tho...defenseless from what?:laugh:

The closest thing that Canada has to an enemy is Denmark...can you imagine a war between Canada and Denmark?


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

Scrap5000 said:


> Defenseless from what? We may not have the best, but we have a very competant military and police force.


I agree with you 100% Danny.
[/quote]

Are you kidding? Your border guards have been screaming complaints for years about not being armed, threatening to quit if they don't get armed, etc. Now, finally, your govt had decided to spend...wait for it... wait for it...[Dr. Evil voice] ONE BILLION DOLLARS [/voice] to arm & train them.

As I said, defenseless.:laugh:
[/quote]
Why would our border need to be armed, its not like we are beside Mexico.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Scrap, you missed the point tho...defenseless from what?:laugh:
> 
> The closest thing that Canada has to an enemy is Denmark...can you imagine a war between Canada and Denmark?


By the time you realize you have an enemy it may be too late. Gotta be like the boyscouts - always prepared.

How about all the stories you hear about the crazy biker/drug gangs in Ottowa? Canada aint the safest, sweetest place in the world anymore, things are changing. Is it so far of a stretch to think one of them could rob your home, mug you in the street, rob a liquor store?

What about the nutso who went on the shooting spree at the University at Montreal? Someone with a ccw permit could have saved a lot of lives. Instead, defenseless.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Guru said:


> Why would our border need to be armed, its not like we are beside Mexico.


Gee, I dunno, maybe to protect against the drug traders that grow all that BC weed and sell it to the drug traders here in the US? Maybe to protect from terrorists like the guy who tried to bring over all of those explosives in his car by driving thru the border? Maybe things like that?

Besides, I'm not the one coming up with the suggestion that it's needed - this was being demanded, thru threat of walk-off, by the very border guards themselves. And your gov't has agreed that it's needed and is devoting 1 billion dollars to do it. That's no chump change, so obviously it was thoroughly researched and decided it was indeed necessary.


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

Scrap5000 said:


> Why would our border need to be armed, its not like we are beside Mexico.


Gee, I dunno, maybe to protect against the drug traders that grow all that BC weed and sell it to the drug traders here in the US? Maybe to protect from terrorists like the guy who tried to bring over all of those explosives in his car by driving thru the border? Maybe things like that?

Besides, I'm not the one coming up with the suggestion that it's needed - this was being demanded, thru threat of walk-off, by the very border guards themselves. And your gov't has agreed that it's needed and is devoting 1 billion dollars to do it. That's no chump change, so obviously it was thoroughly researched and decided it was indeed necessary.
[/quote]
I believe its your government that demanded are government to do all that and they are also making us bring passports everytime we cross the border.
Thats cause our consevative government loves G. Bush. I also believe its your government that is pushing the madate on our government on the war on drugs.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Guru said:


> I believe its your government that demanded are government to do all that and they are also making us bring passports everytime we cross the border.
> Thats cause our consevative government loves G. Bush. I also believe its your government that is pushing the madate on our government on the war on drugs.


No, sorry, but you are incorrect:

http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=3...16-baee4ad8b4bb

It clearly states that the NATIONAL VICE PREZ OF THE CUSTONS UNION endorsed it, and that it follows FIFTY THREE INCIDENTS JUST LAST YEAR of border guards leaving their posts and exercisizing their Right to Leave a Dangerous Work Environment under the Labour Code b/c they didn't have guns to protect themselves in dangerous incidents.

This is the Canada.com website's own story. So I don't know where the hell you are coming up with your "Oh, it'c because the U.S. pressured our government to do it".









Get informed, people, get informed, and don't base your decisions on what you think may or may not be reasons for this or that. Get informed with facts, and it can help you made decisions 1,000 times better.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

flashover00 said:


> This qoute sums it up best for me:
> 
> "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." --Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (TX)


I love it. And Maddyfish's example of Iraq as well.

GG, I've been thinking about what you said yesterday, about how 99% of the gun owners out there can't be trusted & shouldn't have guns. And I realized, there are more than a few gun owners on this site:

Me
JD7.62
Scrappy
Xenon
Tink
mdrs
06 C6
Flashover
AK Skirmish
Roundhead
hitler
xt 12ap

That's at least 12 of us. And by your calculations, 99% of us = 11.88 of us who should not have guns.

So according to you, NONE of us should have guns, because we can't be trusted and are irresponsible.

Not sure how the rest of us feel, but I don't agree with you at all.
[/quote]

LOL....ok listen. Its not that the government is banning ALL types of firearms here, its about the governments ability to limit those types of firearms.

I know the 2nd amendment says " right to bear arms" but clearly the framers didnt have the foresight to realize that *arms 200+ years later would mean such weapons as the UZI and Tek 9*
I understand the argument that you are making "well if they take these then they will soon be after everything and we'll have nothing left"....
But that is ridiculous and paranoid.

There has to be limits on the rights that we have....
FOR EXAMPLE 
We have the right to free speech. Its clear and written in unambiguous language that we have this right. 
BUT...
You cant exactly walk into a movie theatre and yell BOMB expecting the veil of the constitution to protect you. There has to be limits on free speech and one just happens to be threats.

The ban that you are bitching about is just an example of a limit being imposed......They will never come for every gun that you own because that is unrealistic. There would be too many secondary effects from an all encompassing ban on firearms that you are stressing.

Anyway, im saying all this as a card carrying member of the NRA and as a firearm owner.
I own a 12 gauge, a 20 guage break open and .308 winchester. I use them for hunting and clay pigeon shooting and thats about it man...
I am in no way worried that the government is comming for my freakin shotgun someday

I like that you are promoting the National Rifle Association because they do many good things of which the benefits far outweigh the membership fee.
[/quote]

figured i'd throw my .02 worth in here...the tec-9 is a semi automatic pistol which, in my humble opinion, can be considered not only one of the most hyped gun out there, as far as anti's placing blame on a single firearm, but also an incredibly un-reliable piece of garbage. 
beyond that, an UZI is a fully automatic weapon which, in the united states, has been prohibited for private ownership since the 1930's, and the only way to get one is to #1, apply for a class 3 federal license, and #2 get the most rediculous background check ever devised performed upon yourself, and #3 pay 200 dollars per class 3 firearm purchased, and #4 pay the rediculous prices for the automatic weapons available on the market, which is upwards of 5k for a piece of crap.

several points, of that paragraph are, #1, what criminal is going to pay 5k+ for a weapon that they plan on killing someone with...i'd say very very few. think about what happens to a murder weapon...usually it's discarded at the scene, in a dumpster, or somewhere else so that no trace of the murderer can be pulled from the weapon...why would someone pay 5k for a gun just to ditch it? #2 gun bans only ban guns from upstanding citizens. you think criminals walk into wal-mart to buy a gun? the vast majority of criminals are repeat offenders, and any kind of violent crime will show up in the mandatory instant background check that is required to purchase a gun. stolen guns are a lot easier to aquire, as well as being a lot less traceable. so basically gun bans only limit a law abiding citizens right to defend themselves, their family, and their property. well, not their right per-se, but definately their means. also, this nation is a nation by the people for the people, not by the government for the government. ultimately the government NEEDS to have less power than the people for the system to work properly. with an unarmed populace, why should the government cater to the people? we lose our rights, we lose our voice, we lose our country...in that order.


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

Scrap5000 said:


> I believe its your government that demanded are government to do all that and they are also making us bring passports everytime we cross the border.
> Thats cause our consevative government loves G. Bush. I also believe its your government that is pushing the madate on our government on the war on drugs.


No, sorry, but you are incorrect:

http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=3...16-baee4ad8b4bb

It clearly states that the NATIONAL VICE PREZ OF THE CUSTONS UNION endorsed it, and that it follows FIFTY THREE INCIDENTS JUST LAST YEAR of border guards leaving their posts and exercisizing their Right to Leave a Dangerous Work Environment under the Labour Code b/c they didn't have guns to protect themselves in dangerous incidents.

This is the Canada.com website's own story. So I don't know where the hell you are coming up with your "Oh, it'c because the U.S. pressured our government to do it".









Get informed, people, get informed, and don't base your decisions on what you think may or may not be reasons for this or that. Get informed with facts, and it can help you made decisions 1,000 times better.
[/quote]

Im glad there are strict gun rules here in Canada. Most criminals that have guns aquried them by stealing them from good gun owners or smuggled from the US. 
Allright maybe our border should have guns but i still think that all concealed guns should be banned. Even with good gun owners, theres a time when they can mentallly lose it. example wouble be when some dude catches his wife cheating, and he is like im gona kill this bitch and then the kids. Domestic crimes happen a lot even to good gun owners.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> figured i'd throw my .02 worth in here...the tec-9 is a semi automatic pistol which, in my humble opinion, can be considered not only one of the most hyped gun out there, as far as anti's placing blame on a single firearm, but also an incredibly un-reliable piece of garbage.
> beyond that, an UZI is a fully automatic weapon which, in the united states, has been prohibited for private ownership since the 1930's, and the only way to get one is to #1, apply for a class 3 federal license, and #2 get the most rediculous background check ever devised performed upon yourself, and #3 pay 200 dollars per class 3 firearm purchased, and #4 pay the rediculous prices for the automatic weapons available on the market, which is upwards of 5k for a piece of crap.
> 
> several points, of that paragraph are, #1, what criminal is going to pay 5k+ for a weapon that they plan on killing someone with...i'd say very very few. think about what happens to a murder weapon...usually it's discarded at the scene, in a dumpster, or somewhere else so that no trace of the murderer can be pulled from the weapon...why would someone pay 5k for a gun just to ditch it? #2 gun bans only ban guns from upstanding citizens. you think criminals walk into wal-mart to buy a gun? the vast majority of criminals are repeat offenders, and any kind of violent crime will show up in the mandatory instant background check that is required to purchase a gun. stolen guns are a lot easier to aquire, as well as being a lot less traceable. so basically gun bans only limit a law abiding citizens right to defend themselves, their family, and their property. well, not their right per-se, but definately their means. also, this nation is a nation by the people for the people, not by the government for the government. ultimately the government NEEDS to have less power than the people for the system to work properly. with an unarmed populace, why should the government cater to the people? we lose our rights, we lose our voice, we lose our country...in that order.


Now here is a man that knows 100% of what he is talking about. Anyone who is scared of a tec-9 and an uzi has been caught up in the media hysteria, for all the reasons brought up by r1dermon above.

And by the way, no one has yet to answer how many people have ever been murdered in the U.S. by a legally owned machine gun. Anyone know or want to take a guess?


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

Guru said:


> Im glad there are strict gun rules here in Canada. Most criminals that have guns aquried them by stealing them from good gun owners or smuggled from the US.
> Allright maybe our border should have guns but i still think that all concealed guns should be banned. Even with good gun owners, theres a time when they can mentallly lose it. example wouble be when some dude catches his wife cheating, and he is like im gona kill this bitch and then the kids. Domestic crimes happen a lot even to good gun owners.


And do you think that if criminals didn't steal them from good gun owners they would no longer have guns? You don't think they would be smuggled from other places and sold on the black market anyway?

And do you think if someone catches their wife cheating, they will only kill them if they have a gun? A steak knife or a bat or a tv dropped on her head won't have the same effect?

There was a guy in the bronx about 17 years ago who argued with his girlfriend at a club and was thrown out. So he went and bought $1 worth of gasoline, which back then was about a gallon's worth, doused the stairway of the place with the gasoline, lit a match, and 87 people were killed in the ensuing blaze.

Do you think he could have killed 87 people with a gun? Do you really think that guns are the most dangerous items that exist? Should we ban gasoline, or fire, because someone can lose it and kill 87 people with one match?

Here's the story, this place is about 15 minutes from where I live, but a world apart from my neighborhood:

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


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

Scrap5000 said:


> Im glad there are strict gun rules here in Canada. Most criminals that have guns aquried them by stealing them from good gun owners or smuggled from the US.
> Allright maybe our border should have guns but i still think that all concealed guns should be banned. Even with good gun owners, theres a time when they can mentallly lose it. example wouble be when some dude catches his wife cheating, and he is like im gona kill this bitch and then the kids. Domestic crimes happen a lot even to good gun owners.


And do you think that if criminals didn't steal them from good gun owners they would no longer have guns? You don't think they would be smuggled from other places and sold on the black market anyway?

And do you think if someone catches their wife cheating, they will only kill them if they have a gun? A steak knife or a bat or a tv dropped on her head won't have the same effect?

There was a guy in the bronx about 17 years ago who argued with his girlfriend at a club and was thrown out. So he went and bought $1 worth of gasoline, which back then was about a gallon's worth, doused the stairway of the place with the gasoline, lit a match, and 87 people were killed in the ensuing blaze.

Do you think he could have killed 87 people with a gun? Do you really think that guns are the most dangerous items that exist? Should we ban gasoline, or fire, because someone can lose it and kill 87 people with one match?

Here's the story, this place is about 15 minutes from where I live, but a world apart from my neighborhood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land
[/quote]
Yea but guns are designed to kill.
Im glad that you guys cant bring your guns over here.


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_...e_United_States


> Gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides and over half the suicides,[1][2] and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries.[3] It is a significant public concern, especially in urban areas and in conjunction with youth activity and gang violence.[4][5] Gun violence is not new in the United States, with the assassinations of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and of Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. High profile gun violence incidents, such as the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and, more recently, the Columbine High School massacre and the Beltway sniper attacks, have also fueled debate over gun policies.[6]
> 
> *The homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of other developed countries,[7][8][9] with firearms used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005*.[10] Many more suffer non-fatal gunshot wounds, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimating 52,447 violence-related and 23,237 accidental gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[3] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[11] with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.[1]
> 
> Legal policies at the Federal, state, and local levels have attempted to address gun violence through a variety of methods, including restricting firearms purchasing by youths and other "at-risk" populations, setting waiting periods for firearm purchases, establishing gun "buy-back" programs, targeted law enforcement and policing strategies, stiff sentencing of gun law violators, education programs for parents and children, and community-outreach programs. Research has shown mixed results, finding some policies such as gun "buy-back" programs are entirely ineffective, while Boston's Operation Ceasefire has been effective as an intervention strategy.[12] Gun policy in the United States is also highly influenced by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." Gun rights advocates generally encourage a strict preservation of the right protected by the Second Amendment.


Most bank robberies are also done by guns.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

no crime has every been commited "by" a gun...

and about your previous point on a "crime of passion". a crime of passion is done in the heat of the moment, if someone has a knife that's more readily accessible than a gun, they'll gladly use that...or a garden hoe, maybe a chain saw, possibly a brick, or perhaps a bar stool, maybe a pool que? how about a can of soup (those can be surprisingly deadly). point is, a gun is a gun, contrary to popular belief, guns are not "designed" to kill...their main designation is to propel an object at a high rate of velocity to a desired target area as accurately and as efficiently as possible. a .50BMG was not designed to "kill". it was designed to crack motor blocks and immobilize armored vehicles...it makes quick work of a human, but it is also a very good long range target gun for punching holes in paper and 1/4" steel plate...a lot of guns, especially special made target rifles/pistols (manufacturers such as CZ, les baer, and tussey all come to mind when thinking of expensive target pistols, which sole purposes serve as highly accurate competition pistols). were not designed for killing anything at all...of course, many guns were designed with defense or hunting in mind, both of which are practical uses. ultimately, a car was designed to drive from point A to point B...but if the car happens to drive over someone on its way from point A to point B, then is it immediately plausible to ban ownership of vehicles and/or to brand them as machines designated to run people over? because i can tell you, a lot more people die behind the wheel or as a direct result of a car, than die from guns each year...and that includes ALL gun crime, not just gun crime associated with LEGAL firearms brandished by Licensed owners of firearms.

here's a few small statistics

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

and the most telling of all statistics...

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%

end of story...


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> no crime has every been commited "by" a gun...
> 
> and about your previous point on a "crime of passion". a crime of passion is done in the heat of the moment, if someone has a knife that's more readily accessible than a gun, they'll gladly use that...or a garden hoe, maybe a chain saw, possibly a brick, or perhaps a bar stool, maybe a pool que? how about a can of soup (those can be surprisingly deadly). point is, a gun is a gun, contrary to popular belief, guns are not "designed" to kill...their main designation is to propel an object at a high rate of velocity to a desired target area as accurately and as efficiently as possible. a .50BMG was not designed to "kill". it was designed to crack motor blocks and immobilize armored vehicles...it makes quick work of a human, but it is also a very good long range target gun for punching holes in paper and 1/4" steel plate...a lot of guns, especially special made target rifles/pistols (manufacturers such as CZ, les baer, and tussey all come to mind when thinking of expensive target pistols, which sole purposes serve as highly accurate competition pistols). were not designed for killing anything at all...of course, many guns were designed with defense or hunting in mind, both of which are practical uses. ultimately, a car was designed to drive from point A to point B...but if the car happens to drive over someone on its way from point A to point B, then is it immediately plausible to ban ownership of vehicles and/or to brand them as machines designated to run people over? because i can tell you, a lot more people die behind the wheel or as a direct result of a car, than die from guns each year...and that includes ALL gun crime, not just gun crime associated with LEGAL firearms brandished by Licensed owners of firearms.
> 
> ...


Listen to this man, for he is well informed...

Also, we can bring guns into canada, for hunting at least, not sure about self defense from bears, but probably for that reason as well, as I have read stories of people hunting caribou and scaring off bears at night with a .44 revolver when they got too close to the tents...


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2007)

Nothin wrong with having a gun when walking around in the wild, especially bear country.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Nothin wrong with having a gun when walking around in the wild, especially bear country.


That's the spirit, Danny! We're not always at the top of the food chain...


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2007)

Thats completely different than owning a bunch of automatic weapons in new Jersey tho Scrap!

The problem with people and guns in the wild is that they get nervous and fire prematurely. Not all bears and cougars want to kill you...almsot of the the time they want to scare you away from thier territory.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Thats completely different than owning a bunch of automatic weapons in new Jersey tho Scrap!
> 
> The problem with people and guns in the wild is that they get nervous and fire prematurely. Not all bears and cougars want to kill you...almsot of the the time they want to scare you away from thier territory.


Danny, you haven't been paying attention - automatic weapons are extremely difficult to obtain legally - takes a special license that isn't even offered in New Jersey or New York.

And Danny, remember this, b/c it could save your life since you seem to travel into cougar territory: If you see a cougar close by, it's because it wants to eat you. Period. Otherwise it would have high tailed it out of there LONG before you ever saw it, because with its sense of smell and hearing it knew you were there for a very long time before you saw it. So if you see one, it's stalking you.

So raise your arms to look bigger, yell, scream, and don't run - slowly back away. Or if you've been paying attention and fought hard for your rights to own a gun...be prepared to shoot.

And bears, well, if you are being slowly pursued by one, you have to do all you can to fight it off, because if you don't, it WILL eat you when it reaches you. Watch enough Discovery Channel and you'll know exactly which program I'm referring to, with the husband and wife that were slowly pursued by the grizzly and the wife got ate and the husband couldn't do a thing but wish that he had a gun.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

ahh humans, just a buch of kids running with scissors.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2007)

I have come face to face with a bear, and have been stalked by a cougar. Terrifying experiences both in thier own ways.


----------

