assault rifles

[RIJIMMY]

Im gonna cause some ruckus here but can't help myself.
Im torn on the issue, but my gut tells me its about freedom. I get labeled and sometimes label myself as a conservative but in reality Im a libertarian. I dont like being limited and other people monitoring me. 20 million people will drink some beer tonight, 2 will get killed or kill someone in an accident. Do we punish everyone? I can guarantee you if you ban alcohol, hundreds of lives will be saved. More that die in 10 yrs from automatic weapons. One wacko killed a lot of innocent people. I dont know if the solution is to ban the weapons he used. I understand the response, but dont know if its appropriate. I know you wont agree, but to me, its the same senitment as banning large sodas in NYC.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I know you wont agree, but to me, its the same senitment as banning large sodas in NYC.

You can't steal a large soda and use it to kill someone.

You can't equip a gang with large sodas and challenge the police or terrorize a neighborhood.

I think there's quite a difference.

Sure, banning assault weapons won't fix the problem, but the widespread availability certainly makes unnecessary violence more likely. As Jack noted, how so much ammo could be acquired on short notice online is astonishing.

Perhaps part of the answer is stiffer penalties on merchants who sell illegally, closing the gun show loophole etc...

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

You can't equip a gang with large sodas and challenge the police or terrorize a neighborhood.

I think there's quite a difference.

...

-spence

I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?

Soda/beer aren't scary looking.
No reason to ban them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?

The people who die from obesity are auffering, in most cases, from their own choices. Shooting victims don't get to choose what weapon their attackers will arm themselves with. I agree with you, I'm not big on limiting freedom. But millions and millions of peopl eenjoy beer. Only a very small number of people are the types that enjoy these weapons. I'm torn on the issue, very conflicted...

That soda ban is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. People can get 2 small sodas instead, and restaurants often offer free refills. Does Bloomberg really think that there won't be a need for dentists anymore? Does he think he's found the formula for creating a city of Supermen?

[JackK]

It might not fit the exact definition of an "assault weapon". But it damn well is overkill for hunting deer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that


I'm a believer in the right tool for the job

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that

Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow. I'd think a hunting rifle or shotgun would work fine...if you're against that many zombies at once you might want to reflect on your lifestyle.

-spence

[JackK]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow. I'd think a hunting rifle or shotgun would work fine...if you're against that many zombies at once you might want to reflect on your lifestyle.

-spence

/tangent

Yet all of them are too noisy. The best tool by far is the Dead On Annihilator Superhammer. Cost effective, doesn't rely on shady online ammo, and quiet. Won't attract others.

/end tangent

And its always appeared to me that there's much more outrage in this country about tobacco and alcohol... Seems like we're (rightfully) inundated with anti-smoking and drunk driving ads, and I've never seen an anti-gun possession commercial.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, a bullet to the head is effective, but zombies are also very slow.

You haven't seen 28 Days later or Zombieland have you? Today's Zombie is a Fit, Fast and fierce Killing Machine...

Rule#1 Cardio...The fatties were the 1st to go

[JohnR]

Part of the guns was that the citizenry being able to raise a militia in the classical sense, and yes, some reasoning was to be able to overthrow the government if needed. If the government grew too powerful.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You haven't seen 28 Days later or Zombieland have you? Today's Zombie is a Fit, Fast and fierce Killing Machine...

Rule#1 Cardio...The fatties were the 1st to go

"I don't have to outrun the Zombies, I just have to outrun you."

Sh!t

[Pete F.]

Interestingly enough, the new typical hunting gun more and more looks like an "assault" rifle. Modern rifles with that type of action look like that type of action, they don't look like a lever, bolt, pump or one of the WW2 style automatics. The sporting models shoot well, function well and have some other advantages I am told. To me they don't look like hunting guns but I am not very fashionable and still hunt deer with a 30-30. As for a wacko doing mass killings being a reason to outlaw anything sounds good politically but likely will not achieve the result. There are many ways to do evil things that rational people would not consider. Perhaps we should just medicate everyone and keep them in their spaces to prevent the bad things that occur when they interact. I think that was a novel, later a movie.

[PaulS]

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

well seeing what happened to the National Seashore access over the years and the governments' track record on such things, you can guess my answer

[Pete F.]

Deadliest mass shooting around the world CCTV News - CNTV English
So if you look at the deadliest shooting incidents around the world, It does not seem to me that gun laws or specific weapon bans have much impact.
England, Finland and Norway all have more restrictive laws than much of the USA.

[JohnR]

I do find it interesting that a country like Switzerland doesn't have these problems and most everyone has an assault rifle.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This is like some kind of Bizarro world I've wandered into....

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that


I'm a believer in the right tool for the job

Double

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I do find it interesting that a country like Switzerland doesn't have these problems and most everyone has an assault rifle.







Double

Mass shooting reveals dark side of Swiss society
Google is a wonderful thing!

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Deadliest mass shooting around the world CCTV News - CNTV English
So if you look at the deadliest shooting incidents around the world, It does not seem to me that gun laws or specific weapon bans have much impact.
England, Finland and Norway all have more restrictive laws than much of the USA.

No, they don't.

A motivated individual will do what they want despite any threat or laws.

VT shoot proves that
Charles Whitman proves that
This latest incident proves that

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

A motivated individual will do what they want despite any threat or laws.

VT shoot proves that

VT does not prove your point at all, because there was no threat to the gunman. From what I recall, the VT campus was a weapon-free place, meaning even the security guards are unarmed. What VT proved, is that if only the lunatic is armed, that's not a good scenario.

I notice that these shooting sprees never take place at the local gun club. I wonder why that is?

I'm sure these things would continue to take place even if these weapons were banned. You can't eradicate evil. You were 100% correct on that Likiwid. Bad things happen, it's just a way of life.

[Nebe]

As I said. Everyone should have one and a side arm. Crime? What crime. Crowded jails that we all have to pay for?? Empty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Nebe's post about the reason for the second ammendment is spot on. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant nowadays, oudated, not suitable to the modern world, besides, as RIrockhound points out, when the Constititution was written, they had muskets. So even if we did follow the Constitution, the second ammendment would only allow us to own muskets--none of the firearms legally available today would be allowable. Hunters would have to use bow and arrow or muskets or attack the animals with a knife or rock. Anyway, the government can do just about anything it wants now, so what's stopping it from banning these horific weapons since it is so desirous of keeping us from harm, from even harming ourselves? Perhaps the regulators that are flushing out the thousands of pages of regulations for the health care bill can add a regulation outlawing assault weapons. Of course, the purpose of all guns is to kill. Some can kill more and more quickly. Should the regulators have a cutoff number between allowed and banned weapons. Lets say, if you can kill more than 10 people a minute or something like that, the weapon should be outlawed. But doesn't that go against the government's concern about each of our health and well being? Why should a guns ability to kill even one person allow it to be legal. Is the number dead the criteria, not the death itself. Ban them all. Of course, then only criminals would have have guns. So then ban the manufacture of guns. But foreign manufactures coud provide the criminals with guns, and our enemies could overpower our military. So then ban the manufacture of guns worldwide via the U.N. It's considering a worldwide gun control law anyway. Why not just ban the manufacture of guns. Then we could move on to other pesky things that people do and ban those worldwide also.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nebe's post about the reason for the second ammendment is spot on. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant nowadays, oudated, not suitable to the modern world, besides, as RIrockhound points out, when the Constititution was written, they had muskets. So even if we did follow the Constitution, the second ammendment would only allow us to own muskets--none of the firearms legally available today would be allowable. Hunters would have to use bow and arrow or muskets or attack the animals with a knife or rock. Anyway, the government can do just about anything it wants now, so what's stopping it from banning these horific weapons since it is so desirous of keeping us from harm, from even harming ourselves? Perhaps the regulators that are flushing out the thousands of pages of regulations for the health care bill can add a regulation outlawing assault weapons. Of course, the purpose of all guns is to kill. Some can kill more and more quickly. Should the regulators have a cutoff number between allowed and banned weapons. Lets say, if you can kill more than 10 people a minute or something like that, the weapon should be outlawed. But doesn't that go against the government's concern about each of our health and well being? Why should a guns ability to kill even one person allow it to be legal. Is the number dead the criteria, not the death itself. Ban them all. Of course, then only criminals would have have guns. So then ban the manufacture of guns. But foreign manufactures coud provide the criminals with guns, and our enemies could overpower our military. So then ban the manufacture of guns worldwide via the U.N. It's considering a worldwide gun control law anyway. Why not just ban the manufacture of guns. Then we could move on to other pesky things that people do and ban those worldwide also.

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

[Raven]

Originally Posted by spence

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

They just Caught a Guy in MD that had 25 assault rifles and assorted
weapons sittting on 3000 rounds of AMMO....

he was his own gun store for crying out loud

his tee shirt said "Guns don't kill people , I do"

said threateningly to cops

"i wanna go home and load my guns....."

He'll be charged this weekend for numerous violations

my point is: there are extremists out there in the USA

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

The flip side to making everything illegal (where did I advocate that) is to make everything legal. I advocate neither. I advocate adherence to the Constitution. You may not have noticed that that is where I draw the line?

[Nebe]

UN based gun control?? Bwaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Hmmm . . . What if every Jew in Germany in the 1930's and 40's owned an assault rifle with a whole lot of amunition? And what if they understood what was about to happen to them so refused to surrender their guns? Ah, well, firefights and all . . . you know . . . everbody would be disoriented and wouldn't be able to shoot strait. Just mayhem and they'ld be shooting each other instead of the well trained Nazis who would then be justified and skilled enough to methodically mow them down and elliminate them. Oh, wait, they did do that anyway. Bad idea about them owning guns. That would have been too messy and disorderly. Too bad about what happened to them. Oh, well, as likwid says, people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens. Better that the U.N. should control us. Life will be better that way

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hmmm . . . What if every Jew in Germany in the 1930's and 40's owned an assault rifle with a whole lot of amunition? And what if they understood what was about to happen to them so refused to surrender their guns? Ah, well, firefights and all . . . you know . . . everbody would be disoriented and wouldn't be able to shoot strait.

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

There were 600,000 Jews in Germany before the Nazi crackdown and eventual holocaust. Of that, I assume, half would be able to use an assault weapon. The key is for them not only to be armed, but to know what was about to happen to them if they did not leave or forcefully resist. Waiting too late is the mistake we make when we trust but don't verify. The American Founders did not wait too long. They realized early on what was going on and to what it could eventually lead. Furthermore, what if all the Jews in Europe, millions of them, knew what was going to happen to them, and if they were fully armed? And what if all the non-Jews, especially in Eastern Europe knew what was coming and were fully armed? Even if the Nazis could have overcome them, not only would their losses have been huge, the task of the allies would have been greatly easier, and the German war machine would have been defeated fairly quickly. And half of Europe would have been spared the Communist domination that followed the war. But not only were the people not armed, everybody waited too long. The Germans easily took control of unarmed civilians and weak armies in Poland, parts of Czekoslovakia, Austria with the help of Austrians, and made alliances with Italy and Russia and most of the remaining Eastern European countries who were too weak too resist and saw no help from the West forthcoming.

We are very trusting of our government in America. We think it is ridiculous to arm ourselves beyond protection from criminals or for hunting or sport. We didn't start that way, and were originally fearful of a powerful central government. You believe that it is ridiculous to arm ouselves with more powerful weapons, since you obviously feel that we will never need them. It would be very good if you are right. Because we are far along the road, in many respects even other than arms and the second amendment, to waiting too long. The second amendment was given as a means to resistance in the last resort. We can still turn things around to a more constitutional form of government that centers on individual rights and responsibilities. The vote is still a powerful weapon. But ignorance and blind trust can nullify that weapon.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

But at least the jews would have died standing up!

[The Dad Fisherman]

I found this amusing.....