Here we go again

[Bartlett]

H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes

Introduced: Feb 13, 2007
Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY](no cosponsors)

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.

Last Action: Feb 13, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

An ugly democratic assault on the right to freedom of the people of America is back in the light.

See also:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172544255

[TheEschaton]

The 2nd amendment gave citizen the right to bear arms for the purpose of protecting themselves from gov't oppression. It needs to be interpreted, as the Constitution is not a static, staid document.

I happen to believe that whatever interpretation you have, Americans have the right to bear arms. I do not think any valid interpretation concerns weapons used for excessive offensive force, as opposed to defense.

You can fucking stop a thief dead in his tracks with your Colt .45 or whatever.

-TheE-

[Keller]

Habeus Corpus? We don't care.

4th Amendment? Ehhhh, doesn't bother us.

OUR MACHINE GUNS?!?!?! YOU BASTARDS!!!!!


Get some fucking perspective before you talk about "freedom".

[Back]

Whats next? Boxcutters?

[Stanley Burrell]

H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes

Introduced: Feb 13, 2007
Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY](no cosponsors)

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.

Last Action: Feb 13, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

An ugly democratic assault on the right to freedom of the people of America is back in the light.

See also:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172544255

Not to be disrespectful Bartlett, but you're a fucking idiot if you take the second ammendment literally.

[Parkbandit]

Not to be disrespectful Bartlett, but you're a fucking idiot if you take the second ammendment literally.


Yea.. how fucking stupid are you if you interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." as an actual the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


God Bartlett, you are a fucking moron.

[Latrinsorm]

Get some fucking perspective before you talk about "freedom".You try tazering some belligerent LA kid who has an assault rifle and tell me how that goes. THERE'S your fucking Patriot Act. All the obnoxious kids in the computer labs REPRESENT.

[Back]

You try tazering some belligerent LA kid who has an assault rifle and tell me how that goes. THERE'S your fucking Patriot Act. All the obnoxious kids in the computer labs REPRESENT.

Tasers have a lower lethality rate than guns.

[Latrinsorm]

No man, what I meant was those LAPD JACKBOOTED FASCISTS wouldn't have been so able to tazer that guy who was obviously minding his own business if he (the tazered guy) had had an assault rifle. The only good BUSH is a DEAD BUSH!!!

Wait, what?

[Stanley Burrell]

Yea.. how fucking stupid are you if you interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." as an actual the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


God Bartlett, you are a fucking moron.

O.K.

I'll show up at your doorstep excercising my Nuke-U-Lar weapon rights and we can all go out in a bang, dumbass.

[Stanley Burrell]

P.S., you don't actually read my posts so I won't worry about a response.

[Parkbandit]

O.K.

I'll show up at your doorstep excercising my Nuke-U-Lar weapon rights and we can all go out in a bang, dumbass.


Bitch, you wouldn't stand a chance. Not only am I an avid hunter, I'm also a big proponent of bearing arms to protect myself.

Dumbass.

[Parkbandit]

P.S., you don't actually read my posts so I won't worry about a response.

Most of the time, this is correct. If I see your pseudointellectual wannabe type posts, I skip them.

What else would I expect from a Hammerrhead anyway?


:LMAO:

[Back]

I vote we put sanctions on PB’s uranium enrichment program.

[Parkbandit]

I vote we put sanctions on PB’s uranium enrichment program.


I HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS ANYONE ELSE TO POSSESS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

[Back]

I HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS ANYONE ELSE TO POSSESS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

QOTW

In context. By the specific poster.

[Parkbandit]

QOTW

In context. By the specific poster.

Sorry my sarcasm escaped you.. not that I'm surprised.

[Back]

Sorry my sarcasm escaped you.. not that I'm surprised.

It wasn’t in italics.

[Keller]

You try tazering some belligerent LA kid who has an assault rifle and tell me how that goes. THERE'S your fucking Patriot Act. All the obnoxious kids in the computer labs REPRESENT.


??

[Skirmisher]

All the hyperbole aside.

I would be interested in hearing just where the appropriate cutoff point is for armament's being too destructive and or dangerous according to those against an assault weapons ban.

I mean I assume you would not allow the sale of M1-A1's or F-16's or actual artillery but where exactly WOULD you draw the line and why?

[Parkbandit]

Personally, I would draw the line at any automatic and semi-automatic assault weapon. I own a AK-47 knockoff and would gladly give it up if it came to that.

For now though, it will remain locked away in my gun locker.

[Back]

And to tag a question on to that... is that not a fundamental right of any democracy?

[Latrinsorm]

??How are you on the internets without having seen that video? There's some kid flipping out in a computer lab at UCLA, and the campus police come and are all "listen, stfu & gtfo or we'll tazer you" and he carries on carrying on and they zap him, at which point he screams "HERE'S YOUR FUCKING PATRIOT ACT", and then they proceed to zap him like 76 more times, then Dumbledore dies, I stopped paying attention, I'll be honest.

As for the ban itself, priorities. Do we really have a pressing problem with people running around with assault weapons compared to, for instance, cancer? AIDS? Starvation? I'm surprised no one's made a McCarthy reference yet.

[TheEschaton]

If I was gonna play devil's advocate, I'd say anything that can't kill more than 1 person at a time. IE, a bullet technically can only kill one (maybe two with the right caliber) person per bullet....that some guns spray bullets at an extremely high rate would be irrelevant. Weapons which can kill many people at once (grenades, nuclear weapons, etc) would not be okay.

Or, another theory might be you can control guns - IE, aim them, so little risk of collatarel damage. Bombs, grenades, etc, you cannot control who they hit in small areas.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

All the hyperbole aside.

I would be interested in hearing just where the appropriate cutoff point is for armament's being too destructive and or dangerous according to those against an assault weapons ban.

I mean I assume you would not allow the sale of M1-A1's or F-16's or actual artillery but where exactly WOULD you draw the line and why?

Grapeshot pellets from the 18th century.

Y'know, the kind we'll need to load in our rapid fire assault muskets when the immanent redcoat terrorist invasion commences.


What else would I expect from a Hammerrhead anyway?

I play Hammerrhead Crusherson in the text-based multi-user dungeon "GemStone IV," an MMORPG of Simutronics.

That has nothing to do with this thread until I get that 10x veil-iron AK-47 I've from the Elven NRA merchant though, obviously.

[Keller]

How are you on the internets without having seen that video? There's some kid flipping out in a computer lab at UCLA, and the campus police come and are all "listen, stfu & gtfo or we'll tazer you" and he carries on carrying on and they zap him, at which point he screams "HERE'S YOUR FUCKING PATRIOT ACT", and then they proceed to zap him like 76 more times, then Dumbledore dies, I stopped paying attention, I'll be honest.

As for the ban itself, priorities. Do we really have a pressing problem with people running around with assault weapons compared to, for instance, cancer? AIDS? Starvation? I'm surprised no one's made a McCarthy reference yet.

What the FUCK is the internet?

[Bartlett]

The 2nd amendment gave citizen the right to bear arms for the purpose of protecting themselves from gov't oppression. It needs to be interpreted, as the Constitution is not a static, staid document.

I happen to believe that whatever interpretation you have, Americans have the right to bear arms. I do not think any valid interpretation concerns weapons used for excessive offensive force, as opposed to defense.

You can fucking stop a thief dead in his tracks with your Colt .45 or whatever.

-TheE-

So, you - a lawyer to be coming from Boston, MA - interpret the 2nd amendment as the right to defend ourselves from an oppressive government, and say we don't "need" a low caliber "assault rifle" because I can kill a thief with a .45?

For the record theft is not a justification for deadly force in most situations.

As you later mentioned while being devil's advocate, a good cutoff is a weapon that is intended for a single target. You are responsible legally, civilly, and morally (though I know this holds little water these days) for every round you fire. I am also against excessive force, being that I am a law abiding citizen. I am, however, a big fan of "the minimum force necessary." This also has no static definition, and you can't tell me that 12 rounds in my .40 caliber pistol is an excessive amount of power, but 10 would be fine.

A few good reasons to have an "assault rifle"

1) Fun - shooting is a good time. these weapons are light and in the common .223 caliber, there is virtually no recoil. 30rd mags are sweet. I will also include sport, such as coyote hunting in this category, although most states limit mag capacity, the AR-15 is awesome for varmint hunting.

2) Defense - this country is changing drastically. From terrorism, to the boldness of criminals, even to the point of our own government attacking us in a limited scope as Keller pointed out, we have no way of knowing what is "overkill" In the famous LA robbery, a swarm of police were overpowered by a couple dudes with "assault rifles" The same could happen to an individual, and had that occurred within a few hundred yards of my house, it wouldn't have lasted very long.

3) Training - I carry an assault rifle all night long on the job. I am required to shoot qualifying scores 3 times a year, which is 2 more times than most police departments. After 4 months of not shooting this rifle, a lot of people have a hard time putting all their rounds where they need to be from 100 yards. This on the clock shooting time needs to be supplemented with personal training. Unless you think that it is okay for the people who are using these assault weapons in your neighborhoods only fire a few hundred rounds once a year.

4) Yeah, I admit it, they look cool.

Why they should be illegal

1) They look scary
2) I don't feel good knowing my neighbor has one (unless of course there arises a situation where I am saved by it)
3) They look scary
4) You can get 100rd drum magazines, which constantly jam up
5) ooh, that thing just looks nasty
6) Someone could die! (That is the point. Though as already mentioned, a 45 will do the job, and do it better in some scenarios)
8) Yeah.. I just don't like the looks of that uncontrollable killing machine

Whoops, looks like there are twice as many negatives, guess I should change my mind.



Habeus Corpus? We don't care.

4th Amendment? Ehhhh, doesn't bother us.

OUR MACHINE GUNS?!?!?! YOU BASTARDS!!!!!


Get some fucking perspective before you talk about "freedom".

These items are a good exaple of why law abiding citizens need the right to bear arms. Without the availability of physical force, we have no power. The kind of crap that went on in New Orleans for instance, is 100% unacceptable. However, illegal aliens who are suspected of terrorist activity need to be detained. I'd rather offend someone who shouldn't be here in the first place than to let them walk out the door and bomb a subway in rush hour. This type of practice has been going on for a long time, it just happened to suit the Bush bashing media to bring it up now.

If your idea of freedom is committing a crime, and then getting away with it because someone forgot a period on their search warrant, or you get a scumbag lawyer to convince a jury that the convicting evidence is inadmissable because the cops didn't have just cause, then I really don't care about your opinion. Get some knowledge about my perspective before you bash it.

As for the machine guns - they are already regulated and really have nothing to do with a ban on semi automatic rifles that look mean, or a handgun that has more than 10 rounds in it.

I seem to recall an earlier post that indicated most of the liberals here were pro-gun. Most of the elected libs went with the same line - I hope they stand up to what they said when it comes voting time.

[Jorddyn]

I seem to recall an earlier post that indicated most of the liberals here were pro-gun. Most of the elected libs went with the same line - I hope they stand up to what they said when it comes voting time.

I'm pro-gun. I'm anti-stupid-people-with-guns. I haven't yet figured out how to keep them out of the idiots'* hands.

Yet another problem I don't have a solution for. I'm useless. More beer.

Jorddyn

*This word is not directed at anyone on this board. This word is directed to people who shoot their friends by accident, don't realize that shooting someone can kill them, accidentally shoot themselves in the shoulder/foot/groin/eyeball, or don't understand why wandering down a busy street waving a fully loaded weapon while screaming "You all must die!" might not be the best idea.**

**Trust me. This really isn't the best idea.***

***No, I haven't tried it.

[Drew]

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/heston%20nra.jpg My cold dead hands...

[Jorddyn]

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/heston%20nra.jpg My cold dead hands...

Um, in fairness, isn't that just a rifle, and not something anyone is trying to ban?

Jorddyn, just asking

[Drew]

What they are trying to ban is rifles that "look" scary, what they are trying to ban is "just rifles" but ones that are black, with a different grip.

[Jorddyn]

What they are trying to ban is rifles that "look" scary, what they are trying to ban is "just rifles" but ones that are black, with a different grip.

So, essentially the handle and the color is different, but functionality is not?

And, so I'm not accused of trolling - I'm honeslty curious. And, obviously not gun-savvy.

Jorddyn

[Drew]

So, essentially the handle and the color is different, but functionality is not?



Right,

http://www.gunlex.cz/semiauto_rifles/mini-14.jpg

The top rifle was legal during the assault rifle ban, the bottom two are not. They are the exact same rifles (Ruger Mini-14 in this case), shoot the same ammo, have the same power, everything is the same except the bottom two look "scary" and are therefore banned.

[Tsa`ah]

So, essentially the handle and the color is different, but functionality is not?

And, so I'm not accused of trolling - I'm honeslty curious. And, obviously not gun-savvy.

Jorddyn

There's really no clear cut definition. What they're shooting for are semi-automatics capable increased capacity that are not the standard wood stock ... rather rifles that have vertical grips for either hand or "stockless" or collapsing stocks.

I didn't read anywhere in the proposed legislation about banning conversion kits .... which is essentially retarded.

I don't see the point in the potential ban of any "reasonable" firearm. It doesn't deter gun related crime in the least.

Want to solve the gun crime issue? Revoke the right of arms for any violent criminal. Revoke a criminal's right (and the families right) to take the victim to court for defending themselves. Hold gun owners responsible for the gun crimes their children commit using their (the owners) guns. Make penalties extremely harsh for gun related crimes ... even if a shot was never fired.

[Daniel]

There is a pretty remarkable difference between Guns A and B, C. But yea. I agree. There should be a better attempt to create effective legislation.

[Drew]

There is a pretty remarkable difference between Guns A and B, C. But yea. I agree. There should be a better attempt to create effective legislation.


Gun B and C have a pistol grip and a collapsible stock. Nothing else is different.

[Bartlett]

There's really no clear cut definition. What they're shooting for are semi-automatics capable increased capacity that are not the standard wood stock ... rather rifles that have vertical grips for either hand or "stockless" or collapsing stocks.

I didn't read anywhere in the proposed legislation about banning conversion kits .... which is essentially retarded.

I don't see the point in the potential ban of any "reasonable" firearm. It doesn't deter gun related crime in the least.

Want to solve the gun crime issue? Revoke the right of arms for any violent criminal. Revoke a criminal's right (and the families right) to take the victim to court for defending themselves. Hold gun owners responsible for the gun crimes their children commit using their (the owners) guns. Make penalties extremely harsh for gun related crimes ... even if a shot was never fired.

I can agree with most of this. For those who are not savvy, a standard M-4 (the "new M-16") has a collapsable stock, which changes the stock length by about 5 inches. This is a feature they want to ban. If the stock were fixed at the fully extended or retracted length, it would be fine, but because it has the superpower of sliding 5 inches for comfort and application, it is evil. It also has a front grip so you don't melt your hand to the barrel. It is black and looks mean - thus it needs to be off the street.

Conversion kits are mentioned in the ban, and they are also already illegal/regulated (if you are talking about making a semi-auto full auto)

As stated, banning assault rifles would have no positive effect on gun crime, but may reduce crime committed with assault rifles in the long run.

As for solving the gun crime problem, all but two of those are in place, at least in NH. You can still be charged in a civil case in a justified shooting. You will probably win, but people can spend decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars. It sucks, but until the law is changed, I will choose to live and suffer the consequence. People who actually commit a crime with a gun need to punished, those who have not committed a crime, do not need to be punished. The exceptions for parents not being held responsible are if the parents are the victim (they already learned the lesson) and if the gun was stored in a manner that would be reasonably considered secure (and so the law of having to include a trigger lock with every handgun sale comes to pass. For those waiting to jump, I have no problem with this law.)

Gun control in general has proven itself to give the opposite result than desired. The same would happen with a ban on assault rifles, or at best, no change at all.

Someone asked if these guns just looked different but had no funtional difference. Basically yes, but a high capacity magazine gives an advantage simply because more rounds down range increases your chance of hitting your target. The actual bullet is the same as is fired from any "pretty looking sport rifle" and will thus cause the same damage if you are shot. I can't recall if any police were actually killed (I think 1 killed and 1 injured) in the LA robbery I previously mentioned, but the robbers fired hundreds of rounds. Had they been using a "pretty sport rifle" with a decent hunting scope, every round probably would have been a kill at the distances they were shooting. This ban also includes high capacity pistol magazines (generally holding more than 10 rounds.) So a 12 round magazine would be illegal, though I could carry as many 10 round magazines as I felt like. Some security companies are actually forced to take this idea to the extreme. In the nuclear industry specifically, the NRC decides the minimum amount of ammo we have to carry. A standard magazine will hold up to 30 rounds, if state law only allows 10 round mags, the officers have to carry 3 times as many magazines as those in other parts of the country because their state is retarded.

ETA: Drew's example is one of purely cosmetic differences and there are many guns that would fit this category.

[Drew]

Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country (probably the strictest) and guess what... one of the highest rates of gun crime.

[Daniel]

Gun B and C have a pistol grip and a collapsible stock. Nothing else is different.


That's a big difference when you're trying to put a gun into a bag.

I.e. I could easily put an AK47 with a collapsible stock into the ba that I carry my school books into. However, I couldn't even think about hiding an AK with a woodgrain without getting some funny looks.


(Pistol grip is irrelevent)

To further elaborate. I've seen bajillions of rifles on the streets, but I've yet to see one with a full stock.

[Parkbandit]

If I was gonna play devil's advocate, I'd say anything that can't kill more than 1 person at a time. IE, a bullet technically can only kill one (maybe two with the right caliber) person per bullet....that some guns spray bullets at an extremely high rate would be irrelevant. Weapons which can kill many people at once (grenades, nuclear weapons, etc) would not be okay.

Or, another theory might be you can control guns - IE, aim them, so little risk of collatarel damage. Bombs, grenades, etc, you cannot control who they hit in small areas.

-TheE-

The problem, many feel, is once you ban the guns YOU believe should be banned... do you stop there or ban more? I'm all for banning automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons.. if you (read the Government) agrees that is where the ban ends. Or do you start at assault guns.. then move to any gun that uses a magazine? Any gun that uses bullets? Any guns made of metal? Any gun that fires any sort of projectile out?

[Gan]

Getting in late to this thread. Its a good one so far.

1. I'm from Texas and I dont feel that there's a necessary right or need to own a large capacity mid to high caliber semi-automatic fire arm, rifle or shotgun. Even when I hunt, I choose the appropriate option for a sportsman to use against my target. And us Texans are CRAZY about our guns...

2. I used to carry the AR-15 daily (.223) in an earlier job (life). I qualified monthly at 100 yd sillouettes with open and timed rounds requiring a minimum of 90% proficiency in the '10' ring. I blew through an average of 400 rounds a month in practice alone, not counting actual qualification shoots. This by far was the funnest hand held weapon I've ever shot. But for the life of me, other than range shooting, I can not think of any reason why I would need something such as this on a personal level. Especially living in a large metropolitan area, such as Houston.

That being said, I think the legislators need to be a little more accurate in how they word their proposed legislation. The term 'scary' has different connotations. That and a pink painted AK-47 may not appear very scary, but can kill you just the same as a black painted one can. My main concern is that the legislators get away with using a global term such as 'scary' and it sets a precedence for future laws going after firearms of a more personal nature (pistols, single shot rifles, etc.).

[Tsa`ah]

Conversion kits are mentioned in the ban, and they are also already illegal/regulated (if you are talking about making a semi-auto full auto)



Negative. I am referring to stock conversions and so forth. I didn't see them mentioned, or missed where they may have been mentioned.

[Sean of the Thread]

I used to ask myself wtf some of these politicians were thinking.. sadly I now just sigh and move on.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm pro-gun. I'm anti-stupid-people-with-guns. I haven't yet figured out how to keep them out of the idiots'* hands

The second a weapon that has to fire a jillion rounds per second is in the not in the hands of:

A) Millitary personal.

B) Police personal.

C) An artificer of firearms (no, your pp insecurity does not make you the Museum of Natural History.)

...Within the fifty states, the idiot is well-defined.


http://www.gunlex.cz/semiauto_rifles/mini-14.jpgThe top rifle was legal during the assault rifle ban, the bottom two are not. They are the exact same rifles (Ruger Mini-14 in this case), shoot the same ammo, have the same power, everything is the same except the bottom two look "scary" and are therefore banned.

They should ALL be banned.

There is zero purpose in possessing a weapon that mocks items used to fight wars, NOT HUNT FUCKING WILD BUNNY RABBITS UNTIL RODENTS BEGIN IMPLEMENTING I.E.D.'s for fuck's sake.


Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country (probably the strictest) and guess what... one of the highest rates of gun crime.

Yeah. Living in New Haven and having gone a couple short drives to Hartford, CT (You seem to know about gun laws and their stately affiliations, right?) I think I could call bupkiss on that argument and then some. I know that you, Drew, are smart enough to know why using that broad of an analogy is in bad taste (even if it were true.)

.

Alright. I've got it. Lemme get some of ye olde white flight going on:

The sales of rapid ammunition dispersing medium arms described by gun laws will be as easily purchasable to you as they are to deep olive-skinned bearded Muslims and Arabs within this country.

[Stanley Burrell]

I could use a decently global interface for the non-relation of citizen restriction of firearms and crime rate as well.

Figure it out.

[Artha]

The top rifle was legal during the assault rifle ban, the bottom two are not. They are the exact same rifles (Ruger Mini-14 in this case), shoot the same ammo, have the same power, everything is the same except the bottom two look "scary" and are therefore banned.
Looks to me like the bottom two would be a lot easier to stuff in a trench coat and go shoot up a mall.

[Skirmisher]

Bartlett, you are against this pending legislation, I get that much.

I would however still like you to respond the question i posed earlier.

Where exactly would YOU draw the line at what sort of weaponry should be illegal?

[Parkbandit]

Getting in late to this thread. Its a good one so far.

1. I'm from Texas and I dont feel that there's a necessary right or need to own a large capacity mid to high caliber semi-automatic fire arm, rifle or shotgun. Even when I hunt, I choose the appropriate option for a sportsman to use against my target. And us Texans are CRAZY about our guns...


Clearly you've never hunted. I can't imagine hunting dove with a handgun. Or Boar. Or Deer.

Take away rifles, you ban any large game hunting. Take away shotguns, you ban any small game hunting.

[Sean of the Thread]

Bartlett, you are against this pending legislation, I get that much.

I would however still like you to respond the question i posed earlier.

Where exactly would YOU draw the line at what sort of weaponry should be illegal?

Full auto. AP rounds.

[Gan]

Clearly you've never hunted. I can't imagine hunting dove with a handgun. Or Boar. Or Deer.

Take away rifles, you ban any large game hunting. Take away shotguns, you ban any small game hunting.

You misunderstood the sentence. And yes, I grew up hunting and continue to hunt on occasion.

My category was mid to high caliber LARGE capacity rifles. This usually denotes using a rifle that has a semi-automatic firing capability with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds.

My preference is a bolt action with a magazine capacity of 7. Others have different preferences. However, if you need a magazine capacity greater than 10 to hunt with then you need to find a different hobby as your aim and shooting ability sucks.

So to clarify.

1. caliber range - mid to high (.22 down to BB guns dont count).
2. magazine capacity - no greater than 10.

I was qualified, once upon a time for the HK .308, AR-15A2 (.223), Winchester .30-30, and the SW 4006 .40 pistol.

Even with pistols I dont like magazine capacities that make the grip so big its unwieldy. Furthermore, with a pistol, if you need more than 3 shots to take care of business then hopefully you're using it for supression and evasion from overwhelming enemy fire.

[TheEschaton]

Why should "hunting" be a justification to "bear arms" when the Framers wanted the right to bear arms to refer to the ability to protect oneself?

-Thee-

[CrystalTears]

Uncle Jimbo: "They're coming right for us!"

[Stanley Burrell]

Uncle Jimbo: "They're coming right for us!"

:rofl:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Southpark_ep103_1.jpg

Yeah, pretty much.

[Artha]

Why should "hunting" be a justification to "bear arms" when the Framers wanted the right to bear arms to refer to the ability to protect oneself?
I would say that there's was a time when there weren't exactly grocery stores, and while I'm sure a lot of the bigger cities and towns had butchers who were able to provide meat to everyone, most rural places you probably had to do your own hunting. They also didn't have fully (or even semi-) automatic weaponry to distinguish from hunting rifle...so it' reasonable to believe they assumed people would keep weapons for hunting, and that these would be appropriate to hunt with.

[Bartlett]

Bartlett, you are against this pending legislation, I get that much.

I would however still like you to respond the question i posed earlier.

Where exactly would YOU draw the line at what sort of weaponry should be illegal?



As you later mentioned while being devil's advocate, a good cutoff is a weapon that is intended for a single target. You are responsible legally, civilly, and morally (though I know this holds little water these days) for every round you fire. I am also against excessive force, being that I am a law abiding citizen. I am, however, a big fan of "the minimum force necessary." This also has no static definition, and you can't tell me that 12 rounds in my .40 caliber pistol is an excessive amount of power, but 10 would be fine.

I am not saying that we all should have machine guns for self defense, a spray and pray type weapon is unacceptable since the damage I would likely cause is probably worth more than my life. The big picture here, and the question to the public should be: why ban these guns? Some people can't think of a good reason to have one. So what? Plenty of people who live in the city can't think of a good reason to buy a car, and that could kill someone! Nobody should have a car then. People get drunk, then drive and people get killed! Booze and cars should both be illegal. Or, drunk driving should be illegal. Why is it different with guns? I recently read of some dude calling an assault rifle an indiscriminate killing machine, or something to that effect. I guess he was right, because a gun is not able to care either way. A ban on guns - any gun or all guns - will not get the guns out of the hands of criminals, it will not even make it harder.

A few folks have pointed out that a folding stock rifle could be more easily concealed. That is true, however a rifle with a short stock or a shorter overall length would be just as easily concealed. A pal of mine has a bull-pup style rifle. It has a 21 inch barrel and is shorter than 30 inches. No folding stock, no problem

Someone said there is no reason to have more than 3 shots from a handgun. This is an uneducated underestimation of the human body. One of my favorite studies from training was of a cop who went to a domestic violence disturbance, and upon entering, a man appeared across the room with a knife and began to charge the officer who drew his 9mm and fired 14 rounds, all of which were direct hits on the individual's chest. Shot 15 was fired point blank with the officer against a wall, his foot on the guys chest and planted in the dude's skull where he promptly dropped dead. This guy was on no stimulants or under the influence of any kind of drug. Had he been sporting a 6 shooter, things could have been ugly. There is also the case of multiple attackers, so on and so forth.

If thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens own and use these things, there is obviously a lawful use for them. You need a valid reason to take them away. The burden of proof is on the lawmaker. This is a feel good law for politicians that will succeed in nothing more than preventing lawful citizens of this country from owning an "assault rifle."

[Bartlett]

2/28/2007

It didn't make the newspapers or the network news here, but one of the loudest voices for England and Scotland's handgun ban has admitted it's been a dismal failure.

Ian Bell worked long and hard to make sure the ban passed a decade ago. But writing in Scotland's Sunday Herald, he says, "My idea didn't work... guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly."

What Bell says is true. Guns have become common, at least among the criminals in England. Gun crime has doubled since the ban took effect. But guns aren't common among the law-abiding. In fact, they've disappeared, leaving ordinary Britons helpless against criminals.

It's good that Ian Bell's admitted the ban's been a failure. But I notice he never called for an end to the ban. Admitting failure's a good first step, but it does nothing if you don't take the next step of righting a wrong.

Same thing will go on anywhere there are people. Even though this is in reference to all guns, if it were just a limited portion of guns, the same thing would probably happen (by probably I mean the same guy might just use a different gun and commit the same act.)

[Gan]

Someone said there is no reason to have more than 3 shots from a handgun. This is an uneducated underestimation of the human body. One of my favorite studies from training was of a cop who went to a domestic violence disturbance, and upon entering, a man appeared across the room with a knife and began to charge the officer who drew his 9mm and fired 14 rounds, all of which were direct hits on the individual's chest. Shot 15 was fired point blank with the officer against a wall, his foot on the guys chest and planted in the dude's skull where he promptly dropped dead. This guy was on no stimulants or under the influence of any kind of drug. Had he been sporting a 6 shooter, things could have been ugly. There is also the case of multiple attackers, so on and so forth.

I was going to give a reply regarding aiming and accuracy since you requoted my statement about not needing more than 3 shots for a handgun without understanding the context... then I finished your next few sentences and saw that the cop was firing center mass with a 9mm.

1. We're not discussing law enforcement weapons, we're discussing weaponry of the general population. Look at any large city's tactical response team's weapon inventory and you'll find fully automated weapons of choice available. In that category, there should not be any ban with regards to law enforcement use.

1.a. I regularly chuckle at officers on duty who carry the .38 revolver as a service pistol. Might as well go for the 007/inspector gadget/batman look and sport a walther .32. That would give him more room on his utility belt for extra gear like a an extra tazer and a belt fired grappling hook.

2. 9mm pistols are not something I would choose to go on duty with if I were still in law enforcement, even using hot loaded hydroshocks. Thats why I trained and qualified using a .40. And why my backup was a rueger hammerless .357 revolver.

3. Law enforcement training focuses on firing center mass as the mechanical reaction to drawing and firing your weapon. Thats the largest body area percentage to hit. However if after about the 3rd or 4th round of successful center mass strikes did not succeede in taking down the target then the cop should have been thinking of moving to the head, especially since the target was so close and moving in. The last thing I would want to realize after wasting a whole clip and facing a still standing aggressor is that he's wearing body armor or high in pcp, or that the caliber of my weapon was insufficient in having knockdown power.

4. Your analagy is simply an uneducated estimation of tactical law enforcement firearm use mistakenly applied to a discussion of civilian/general population firearm limits.

[Parkbandit]

Why should "hunting" be a justification to "bear arms" when the Framers wanted the right to bear arms to refer to the ability to protect oneself?

-Thee-

So now you propose banning hunting?

THIS is exactly the reason you liberals haven't done shit to control guns... because assault weapons are just not enough for you. You want to ban hunting and all guns... which basically means you can kiss our ass.

[Gan]

THIS is exactly the reason you liberals haven't done shit to control guns... because assault weapons are just not enough for you. You want to ban hunting and all guns... which basically means you can kiss our ass.

Its the whole give them an inch and they take a mile routine. Which is why precedent in matters of the 2nd amendment make me nervous with liberal leadership. Even if I dont see the practicality in owning an assault classified weapon (notwithstanding that any weapon is capable of assault, its just the high capacity/high caliber/semi-full automatic style firearm that I'm meaning). Having to worry about others with assault weapons is not as bad as having to worry about not having any firearms at all in my opinion. (well leagally that is, thinking that criminals will cease to have firearms if they are banned is crazy talk)

[Nieninque]

Originally Posted by NRA of course
2/28/2007

It didn't make the newspapers or the network news here, but one of the loudest voices for England and Scotland's handgun ban has admitted it's been a dismal failure.

Ian Bell worked long and hard to make sure the ban passed a decade ago. But writing in Scotland's Sunday Herald, he says, "My idea didn't work... guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly."

What Bell says is true. Guns have become common, at least among the criminals in England. Gun crime has doubled since the ban took effect. But guns aren't common among the law-abiding. In fact, they've disappeared, leaving ordinary Britons helpless against criminals.

It's good that Ian Bell's admitted the ban's been a failure. But I notice he never called for an end to the ban. Admitting failure's a good first step, but it does nothing if you don't take the next step of righting a wrong.

When I was at college, one of our lecturers used to throw out a little saying along the lines of there are statistics, damn statistics and lies...


The official figures for gun crime in England and Wales in 2002/03 were announced in January 2004. There were a total of 24,070 firearm offences of which 57% (13,822) involved air weapons, the highest number of offences ever. The largest increase in offences was seen with imitation firearms for which there was an annual increase of 46% to 1815 offences.

The latest gun crime figures from Scotland show a total of 970 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used in 2003, a reduction of over 9% from 2002. A large proportion of the offences (43 percent) involved air weapons, and 37 percent were committed with unidentified weapons (the latter figure has increased significantly in recent years since Strathclyde (after 2001) and Lothian and Borders (after 2002) stopped making assumptions about what type of weapon was used even if it had not been identified - it was usually assumed that this was an air weapon for statistical returns and this is still likely to be the case). Handguns were involved in 29 offences, the lowest number since 1990. No handgun was used in any offence which caused injury or death.

Criminal statistics England and Wales 2002/2003. Supplementary Volume 1. Homicide and Gun Crime (edited by David Povey). National Statistics. January 2004

Recorded Crimes and Offences involving Firearms, Scotland, 2003. Scottish Executive National Statistical Bulletin. October 2004

[zhelas]

1) They look scary

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/6231-2/colors4838.jpg

[Gan]

:rofl:

Zhelas FTW.

[TheEschaton]

I'm not saying hunting should be banned. I'm not an animal rights activist. I just find it funny that people defend the 2nd amendment with "I wanna hunt" rather than the reason the Framers give of "To defend oneself from the oppression of the gov't" because, politically, the former resonates with a larger majority of the populace.

If the 2nd Amendment debate came up in a larger sense in society, and the only thing the Pro-Gun people could say is "We have a right to hunt with guns..." they would be laughed out of the building.

-TheE-

[Bartlett]

Ganalon,
Law enforcement tactics really had nothing to do with the point of the LE example I brought up. The point is that a human being can eat 14 rounds and keep coming. Center of Mass is normally effective and is also a big target. As for concealed carry civilians I would say mot people don't have the skill to effectively shoot a fast moving target in the head while under the stress and time pressure of grave danger to their life, especially when other people are around, like the attacker's wife. From your previous posts on this thread, I am confident you are/were an excellent shooter. We have guys who shoot perfect scores that have never shot a gun off duty, if the suggestion is for nobody to practice because it can be done by those with natural talent, that is a bad suggestion. We can both agree that the 9mm cartridge sucks, but the situation is possible with a .40 or whatever round you carry. Maybe 500 S&W is a guarantee, but I'm not sure.

I seem to have typed more harshly than intended toward you and I apologize for the offense. Either way, I have not heard any good reason for this bill to be supported, despite the number of supporting posts it has gotten from this membership.

For the rebuttal to the NRA post, the statement they quoted came from the guy who set it up, not from NRA's interpretation. I don't care if they use air guns or a something that looks like a gun, they still have the power because they know everyone else is disarmed, and the people of that country are victimized because of it.

[Sean of the Thread]

.357sigauto ftw.

[Back]

Fuck that. I want one of these.

U.S. picks design for new generation of nuclear warheads (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4598305.html)


The Bush administration took a major step today toward building a new generation of nuclear warheads, selecting a design that is being touted as safer, more secure and more easily maintained than today's arsenal.

---------------------------------------------

Awesome. A nuke for every pot.

[Artha]

safer, more secure and more easily maintained than today's arsenal.

Those jerks!!! How dare they!?!?

[Back]

Those jerks!!! How dare they!?!?

Yeah. Thought Reagan took care of that. Well, he did. We are in a new era and our great leader is making decisions.

Tough decisions.

[Latrinsorm]

liberal leadershipI'm surprised nobody had a titter over this yet. Allow me: ::titter::

[Nieninque]

For the rebuttal to the NRA post, the statement they quoted came from the guy who set it up, not from NRA's interpretation.

They misrepresented a newspaper article he wrote.

Same result.


I don't care if they use air guns or a something that looks like a gun, they still have the power because they know everyone else is disarmed, and the people of that country are victimized because of it.

Please dont mistake me for advocating on behalf of people who use replica guns to rob post offices, but surely you can see that legislation preventing the ownership of guns, cannot possibly extend to "things that look a bit like a gun".

The problem isnt the object itself, in that circumstance, moreso what it is used for. As the British Crime Survey showed, actual gun usage in crime had decreased, not increased, despite the number of crimes recorded that fell under firearms categories.

[Gan]

.357sigauto ftw.

That makes shooting a .45 acp seem like a walk in the park... and it makes my hand hurt just thinking about ripping off a clip of those bad boys. :(

[Gan]

Fuck that. I want one of these.

U.S. picks design for new generation of nuclear warheads (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4598305.html)



---------------------------------------------

Awesome. A nuke for every pot.

You know, someone's gotta have em, it might as well be us.

How would you feel if a country like Iran was the only country in the world to have a nuclear arsenal? Feel free to speak freely, since you wouldnt be able to in the afore mentioned scenario ;).

[Bartlett]

The problem isnt the object itself, in that circumstance, moreso what it is used for. As the British Crime Survey showed, actual gun usage in crime had decreased, not increased, despite the number of crimes recorded that fell under firearms categories.

The problem isn't the object itself in any circumstance. Unless it gets a mind of it's own it is no more harmful than a sharp pencil. The problem I have, as previously stated, is the government enforced victimization of it's citizens, which is the effect that occured. Here in the US, many states have taken on more relaxed gun laws and have seen decreases in crime while the national average rises. Then you get some idiot in Massachusetts to put a billboard on the pike blaming NH and Vermont for their gun crime.

I can terrorize you with a plastic gun just as well as with a real one if I know I can do it with impunity.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah. Thought Reagan took care of that. Well, he did. We are in a new era and our great leader is making decisions.

Tough decisions.


Yea.. because technology is the same as it was in the 80's.

[Parkbandit]

You know, someone's gotta have em, it might as well be us.

How would you feel if a country like Iran was the only country in the world to have a nuclear arsenal? Feel free to speak freely, since you wouldnt be able to in the afore mentioned scenario ;).

Remember, you are asking Backlash.. who has no problem with any country having a full nuclear weapon program. I think his quote was something like "Well, who are we to say they can't?"

[Ignot]

Its harder to miss with a knife....just keep that in mind.

[Gan]

Its harder to miss with a knife....just keep that in mind.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight is really not a good idea. Seriously.

[Artha]

Someone with knife training, in close quarters, will fuck up someone with a gun 98% of the time, especially if that gun's holstered.

But um...letting just anyone have nukes is not a good idea, for what should be obvious reasons.

[sst]

Someone with knife training, in close quarters, will fuck up someone with a gun 98% of the time, especially if that gun's holstered.

But um...letting just anyone have nukes is not a good idea, for what should be obvious reasons.

I can vouch for this, we had a case when clearing a target house where #2 came around the corner to a guy raising his AK, he got him with his knife once in the stomach before he was able to pull a round off. Needles to say I always bring my K-bar with me when i go out, which i didn't used to. (as to the reason he didn't shoot him, there were people in the room on the other side of the wall.)

[Gan]

Someone with knife training, in close quarters, will fuck up someone with a gun 98% of the time, especially if that gun's holstered.

But um...letting just anyone have nukes is not a good idea, for what should be obvious reasons.

Almost any combatant with almost any weapon who has the advantage of suprise and proximity over their opponent will be the likely winner in almost any contest of arms.

[Artha]

I saw a video on it, even if you've got your gun drawn your chances of actually stopping the guy before he fucks you up with a knife are almost nothing.

[Nieninque]

The problem isn't the object itself in any circumstance. Unless it gets a mind of it's own it is no more harmful than a sharp pencil. The problem I have, as previously stated, is the government enforced victimization of it's citizens, which is the effect that occured. Here in the US, many states have taken on more relaxed gun laws and have seen decreases in crime while the national average rises. Then you get some idiot in Massachusetts to put a billboard on the pike blaming NH and Vermont for their gun crime.

And as I showed above, in the UK we take a hard line approach to guns and the actual number of guns used in crimes has declined, despite the interpretation of Ian Bell and the NRA. As a result, I would say that the ban on handguns has actually been a success.


I can terrorize you with a plastic gun just as well as with a real one if I know I can do it with impunity.

This thread isnt about the different ways to terrorise people though, amirite?

[Latrinsorm]

As a result, I would say that the ban on handguns has actually been a success.If there were 2 knifing crimes for every 1 less gun crime you had, would you be so optimistic?

[Nieninque]

Shut up idiot

[Artha]

The turn this thread's taken made me think of a Vice article from a while back.


How many people have you heard of who got "ashtrayed" (breaking an ashtray over somebody's head) or "canned" (ripping up a can of lager and rubbing it over somebody's face a hundred times until their face looks like a crossword)? Probably not that many, because you've never lived in Wigan, North England, where the only guns you can buy are air pistols that can barely kill mice at point-blank range—unless you get them converted

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v11n11/htdocs/anarchy.php

[TheEschaton]

A knife in close quarters ftw. Just gotta know how to use it.

And Dave, do you really call your teammates by numbers? Or is that some weird military jargon I'm missing?

-TheE-

[Back]

Remember, you are asking Backlash.. who has no problem with any country having a full nuclear weapon program. I think his quote was something like "Well, who are we to say they can't?"

If we have the best model on Earth why would we deny anyone else to have the same? We would be hypocrites not to.

[Sean of the Thread]

I saw a video on it, even if you've got your gun drawn your chances of actually stopping the guy before he fucks you up with a knife are almost nothing.

You sound like the type that believe's what you see on CNN cause "they say so".



What Ganalon said.

[Sean of the Thread]

If we have the best model on Earth why would we deny anyone else to have the same? We would be hypocrites not to.

Well at the very least we've increased your vocabulary..

[Back]

Well at the very least we've increased your vocabulary..

It was never me who had the problem. Go back and look.

Tons of misspellings and wildly inappropriate usages.

[Sean of the Thread]

Well at least you're making somewhat complete sentences for a Saturday. Congrats pal!

[Parkbandit]

If we have the best model on Earth why would we deny anyone else to have the same? We would be hypocrites not to.

I don't know.. self preservation?

Do you really believe that the world would be a safer place if a country like Iran had the same nuclear capabilities as we did? I think you are spending too much time in TheE's fantasy world.

[Gan]

And Dave, do you really call your teammates by numbers? Or is that some weird military jargon I'm missing?-TheE-
I'm betting its the call signs of the entry team. #2 being the second man in through the doorway who's got his own zone of responsibility... etc.

[Parkbandit]

Why are you voting for Rudy in 08?

I just can't decide who to back.

Convince me.

[Gan]

Why are you voting for Rudy in 08?

I just can't decide who to back.

Convince me.

I'm looking for a leader, first and foremost. Of all the options, I think Rudy has the 'iron' inside to be a (our national) leader. He gets it when it comes to planning, organization, and putting the right people in the right places. The guy's smart, he's used to running a big ship, and he walks the walk instead of just talking the talk.

I'm looking for someone who understands a business model and has enough fortitude to try and shape our federal bureaucracy into a more efficient system. In this category, I"m also looking for someone who wont revert back to taxing the hell out of its citizens to pay for its shenanigans but trim its own fat to meet the budget on what we already pay and or just cut out the shenanigans.

I could care less about Rudy's views on gay marriage, gays in general, and abortion. If you're gay and want to get married, go for it. Your decision has no bearing to me in how I live my daily life, pay my taxes, etc. If you want an abortion then go for it. I only draw the line when the fetus is viable without superhuman intervention (21+ weeks or 3rd trimester). What happens to you for doing that is between you and your God. Not me. To me, these are the least important areas in which I'm viewing the list of potentials. Oh, and who cares that he has been divorced... His social life has no bearing on what kind of leader he is, his past performance says everything about what kind of leader he is.

My only concern is Rudy's views on gun control. I'm OK with controlling the automatic/semi-automatic high caliber rifles; but don't go too far buddy. I like hunting, I like owning a gun and I like going out to the range or to the country and blowing through a few boxes of ammo. I like shooting in general. And yes, holding down a fully automatic rifle is something that defines 'getting wood'; however, its not practical nor is it something that requires existence for my sustenance.

I'm not a Romney fan. He flips sides on issues and platforms too much for me. I'm afraid he would not pursue what I voted him in for if times got tough. He gives me that greasy 'politician' feel almost as bad as McCain does. Romney is also too far right for me. I'm voting in someone for political leadership, not religious leadership. I'm sick and tired of the conservative christian leadership shoving their agenda down my throat by dictating how our political leaders make their decisions. They seem to have lost the concept of freedom of religion.

McCain is just scary. I mean he's got cajones for flying into the face of his peers on certain issues, but conversely that questions his loyalty big time. Something about him I just cant put my finger on. I know I didn't care nor support him in his past bids for election and I wont support him now.

[Bobmuhthol]

I started reading the first few posts and nothing after that, so this is going to be totally irrelevant to any recent posts. The last post I read was Bartlett suggesting that the only reason to ban guns is because people are afraid of them...?

Anyway, the reasons he cited the need to own a fully automatic assault rifle were basically personal satisfaction. I happen to like cocaine, and it makes me a happy guy. However, the evil government banned citizens from owning cocaine just because it "looks scary." What the fuck is that?!?!?!?!?!

[Bobmuhthol]

As far as the ban on firearms in the United Kingdom...

It didn't reduce violent crime, and was not really that successful in the sense that it cleaned up society. It just reduced the number of guns.

[Ignot]

I have turrets and bazookas protecting my home. you can't say i can't have them i have a right to bare arms!

[Nieninque]

I have turrets and bazookas protecting my home. you can't say i can't have them i have a right to bare arms!

T-shirts this time of year?
You must be awful chilly.

[Ignot]

huh?

[Snapp]

bare arms.. t-shirt.. get it? haw haw

[Ignot]

heh heh. i totally didn't get it at first.:)

[sst]

A knife in close quarters ftw. Just gotta know how to use it.

And Dave, do you really call your teammates by numbers? Or is that some weird military jargon I'm missing?

-TheE-

No, I wont use their names on a public forum for both personal and security reasons. My reference to #2 is the 2nd man though the door when clearing the room. It was a suprise since most of the time they dont put up a fight when you clear houses, since they pretty much accept they are fucked.

[sst]

I'm betting its the call signs of the entry team. #2 being the second man in through the doorway who's got his own zone of responsibility... etc.

Yeah, exactly.