Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
'Assault' Weapons
    #2958520 - 08/02/04 11:29 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Can someone explain to me how a flash suppressor, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a forward pistol grip, threaded barrel, an overall length of less than 30 inches, a second handgrip, or shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand make a rifle any more dangerous that one without these characteristics? While you're at it, why is a 7.62 x 39 or a .223 more worrisome to possess than a 270 Win, a 7mm mag, a 300 Win. Mag, or a 30-06 Springfield?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2958528 - 08/02/04 11:32 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

because children DIE!!!!!!

think of the CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAhronZombi
AhronZombi

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2958606 - 08/02/04 11:54 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

guns are immortant to have even if kids die. think if the government took all of our guns and we couldnt fight back

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,028
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 1 month, 11 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2958647 - 08/03/04 12:13 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I would say that most of those would make a gun more usuable for sustained action and more suitable battle.  The flash suppressor would make it more difficult to pinpoint the source of fire.  If the government ever decided to take away the guns and attempt to enslave us, this would make the resistance that would undoubtedly arise better equipped than neccessary. 

:shiftyeyes:


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2958698 - 08/03/04 12:41 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Evolving said:
While you're at it, why is a 7.62 x 39 or a .223 more worrisome to possess than a 270 Win, a 7mm mag, a 300 Win. Mag, or a 30-06 Springfield?



Because those are military rounds and are cheaper to buy. On a side note we should be able to own military weapons as that is one of the main points of the second amendment. The citizens should be a threat to the government.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Edited by z@z.com (08/03/04 12:43 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2958734 - 08/03/04 12:54 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I think the whole anti-gun argument is based on emotion that the idea of guns and killing produce.  With this train of thought, if a gun is "scary" or "mean" looking then it should be banned.... 

One day, either soon or distant, some threat from either inside or out will pose a serious threat to America (or any country for that matter).  What does a government "of the people" have to worry about an armed public?  Nothing, if they are truly "of the people".

Im a little ashamed to admit ive never even fired a gun... I remember as a child, using an old Vietnam rifle my uncle brought back, I would stab a photo of Saddam with the bayonet  :lol: That was back during the fist gulf war of course.  I would like to get a gun when i get more money, fortunately my state allows conceal carry with a permit.
:guns:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: DieCommie]
    #2958743 - 08/03/04 12:57 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I say get a gun while you still can.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: DieCommie]
    #2959257 - 08/03/04 07:40 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
What does a government "of the people" have to worry about an armed public?  Nothing, if they are truly "of the people".



:thumbup:


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #2959293 - 08/03/04 07:54 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

HagbardCeline said:
I would say that most of those would make a gun more usuable for sustained action...



Well, the so-called assault weapons are semi-auto and none of those characteristics make a difference to most people that I know.

Quote:

...and more suitable battle. The flash suppressor would make it more difficult to pinpoint the source of fire.



But the assault weapons have bans placed on them because they are favored weapons of drug dealers, gang bangers and other criminals (or so we are told). How are these weapons made any more dangerous by these characteristics (especially when used by common thugs)? These charactersitics are really cosmetic (**edit** except the barrel shroud which should be considered a safety feature). There is no mechanical difference between so-called assault weapons and hunting rifles. One can easily replace the stock on a mini-14 and go from respectable ranch rifle to dangerous assault weapon in a matter of minutes.

Quote:

If the government ever decided to take away the guns and attempt to enslave us, this would make the resistance that would undoubtedly arise better equipped than neccessary.



The American GI was able to beat the Germans and Japanese using the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. The 30-06 is undoubtably a better round for hitting targets at a distance than either the .223 or the 7.62 x 39.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (08/03/04 08:22 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: z@z.com]
    #2959349 - 08/03/04 08:10 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

z@z.com said:
Because those are military rounds and are cheaper to buy.



But does that make them more dangerous?  So the common man with less money is penalized in his options for the shooting sports.  Not very egalitarian.  I really should have asked which rounds are more deadly because that was the gist of what I was getting at :blush:.  The .223 & 7.62 x 39 are less effective rounds in many situations and hence less deadly in some ways.  The .243 Win is arguably a better choice for a light tactical round.

Quote:

On a side note we should be able to own military weapons as that is one of the main points of the second amendment. The citizens should be a threat to the government.



I agree.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #2959512 - 08/03/04 08:43 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

If the government ever decided to take away the guns and attempt to enslave us, this would make the resistance that would undoubtedly arise better equipped than neccessary.




Government already enslaved you without taking away your guns. If you're armed you're a danger only for your family and neighbours - not for the government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePositronius
playboy

Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 19 years, 7 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: AhronZombi]
    #2959562 - 08/03/04 09:02 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

AhronZombi said:
guns are immortant to have even if kids die. think if the government took all of our guns and we couldnt fight back




haha, yeah, keep dreaming.


--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: AhronZombi]
    #2959658 - 08/03/04 09:32 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

You are fighting the government with firepower?

Hey you could always fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers and the pentagon if you are up for it.


Are you a terrorist? They will call you that.

:rockets: <----- is that an 'assault' weapon?

:sniper:  <----- is that one?

:laser:  <------ aaahhh - a pistol - that's not an 'assault' weapon is it?  Or does that grip protrude a  bit  too conspicuously?
shit it is quite badass isn't it! Lazer capability! Wooo HOO!!!

Are lazer guns 'assault' weapons?

I can't imagine conducting an 'assault' with anything that does not have a thumbhole stock. It's so obvious that you can't. :mrt:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: zeronio]
    #2959683 - 08/03/04 09:43 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zeronio said:
If you're armed you're a danger only for your family and neighbours...



Please don't make ignorant and ill informed statements.

Quote:

...not for the government.



Tell me, why do outstanding liberals such as Diane Fienstein, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy want to ban firearms that aren't used in crimes? I'll give you a hint, they're scared of the public. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, a government that truly is of, by and for the people has no reason to fear an armed populace, for in such a case the people ARE the government.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: CJay]
    #2959716 - 08/03/04 09:53 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

CJay said:
I can't imagine conducting an 'assault' with anything that does not have a thumbhole stock. It's so obvious that you can't. :mrt:



He he, touches on my point.  Those who want to ban so called assault weapons but say it's okay to keep hunting rifles, really don't know firearms.  They are driven by hysteria, an irrational fear of what they don't understand.  Of course, there are a great many of those who want to ban 'assault weapons' as another step towards total disarmament of the populace - they fear that the populace will one day wake up and realize that the government is not of the people anymore.  This would greatly limit public appearences by the ruling class and further destroy the illusion that they speak for the common man.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2959794 - 08/03/04 10:16 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

a government that truly is of, by and for the people has no reason to fear an armed populace, for in such a case the people ARE the government.





There will always be minority factions who may or may not choose to employ violence to acheive their political ends (like eco-terrorists for example :wink:)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2959807 - 08/03/04 10:21 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Please don't make ignorant and ill informed statements.




how many successful government uprisings have there been since the 1783? How did Koresh do? How did the Montana Freemen do? Ruby Ridge?

How many firearm deaths have there been? So far, statistics show guns have only been a real threat to fellow citizens.

Quote:

Tell me, why do outstanding liberals such as Diane Fienstein, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy want to ban firearms that aren't used in crimes? I'll give you a hint, they're scared of the public.



Hell, most of D.C. was scared shitless by just two men and one rifle.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2959916 - 08/03/04 10:54 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
Quote:

Please don't make ignorant and ill informed statements.




how many successful government uprisings have there been since the 1783?



I was referring to his ignorant and illinformed statement that HagbardCeline is a danger only for his family and neighbours. That IS ignorant and ill informed. Do you realize that water in the home is statistically a greater danger than a firearm? Do you realize that an automobile is also a greater danger? He and you have no way of knowing how safely HagbardCeline or any other decent people handle firearms and what precautions they take in their homes and neighborhoods. My bet based on statistical evidence is that you are more of a threat in your automobile.

There has not been a popular armed anti-government uprising in this country since it's founding. So your examples do not apply. Koresh DID NOT attack the government, it was the other way around. I don't not recall that the Montana Freemen were leading a popular armed uprising against the government either, perhaps you can provide evidence of this. No one at Ruby Ridge attacked the government, it was the other way around. For a good perspective on Ruby Ridge, try reading the book by left wing attorney Gerry Spence, 'From Freedom to Tyrrany.'


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2959931 - 08/03/04 11:01 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
Quote:

a government that truly is of, by and for the people has no reason to fear an armed populace, for in such a case the people ARE the government.





There will always be minority factions who may or may not choose to employ violence to acheive their political ends (like eco-terrorists for example :wink:)



So what?  Do you think the lawless will obey the law?  Why should the government fear the common man, unless the government is corrupt and is not of, by and for the people?  It would seem that the common man could easily be enlisted to help against terrorist if the government trusted the people.  But this is not the case.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2959946 - 08/03/04 11:10 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

My bet based on statistical evidence is that you are more of a threat in your automobile.




Absolutely, which is why I can understand and accept the multitude of safety regulations involved.

Quote:

Koresh DID NOT attack the government, it was the other way around. I don't not recall that the Montana Freemen were leading a popular armed uprising against the government either, perhaps you can provide evidence of this. No one at Ruby Ridge attacked the government, it was the other way around.




True, but my point was that they were examples of resisting the government with firearms to no avail.

Quote:

For a good perspective on Ruby Ridge, try reading the book by left wing attorney Gerry Spence, 'From Freedom to Tyrrany.'




Agreed, I'll never forget that chapter, only book in memory that has made me tear :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2960363 - 08/03/04 01:52 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2960754 - 08/03/04 03:22 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

:thumbup:





Criminal: Now that I've taken your money I'm going to kill you.
Victim: Say.... isn't that an "assault" rifle? They're illegal, aren't they?
Criminal: Holy crap! Your right! I better not kill you after all.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2960827 - 08/03/04 03:32 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

the "assault weapons" ban ends sept. 13. stock up while you can.  :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2960873 - 08/03/04 03:41 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

they don't?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2961620 - 08/03/04 07:45 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Yes i need to get a .223 bushmaster with a foldable stock, that would certainly be bitchin....

I think a Taurus Tracker would make a good sidearm just make sure its a .357 magnum or should i get a 454 casull or just a plain old .44 magnum.

i dunno what do you fellas think...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2962443 - 08/03/04 11:05 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

My bet based on statistical evidence is that you are more of a threat in your automobile.

Absolutely, which is why I can understand and accept the multitude of safety regulations involved.




:handth:

I dont support flat-out gun banning at all, but  I do support such regulations as periodic licensing, mandatory safety classes, concealment laws, etc - just like driving. If you want to own an automatic rifle and keep/shoot the gun on your private time & land, good for you. That's none of my business until you're in public and being reckless.

I think gun regulation should be a state decision not a federal one for many reasons - just like driving.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2962975 - 08/04/04 02:19 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Evolving said:
Quote:

zeronio said:
If you're armed you're a danger only for your family and neighbours...



Please don't make ignorant and ill informed statements.





My statement is based on a statistical fact.

Quote:


Tell me, why do outstanding liberals such as Diane Fienstein, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy want to ban firearms that aren't used in crimes? I'll give you a hint, they're scared of the public. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, a government that truly is of, by and for the people has no reason to fear an armed populace, for in such a case the people ARE the government.





Totalitarian governments usually tend to arm populace, because they know that people aren't going to fight the power but they'll rather slaughter each other. Iraquis were heavily armed but they didn't uprise against Saddam - they rather use the weapons against americans. The same thing happened in Yugoslavia. Genocide & ethnic cleansing are usually done by armed civilians and para military.
Anyway - you don't need firearms to fight the government. You can buy a truck of fertilizers and blow up a federal building just like McVeigh did.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCJay
Dark Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2963142 - 08/04/04 04:10 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Tell me, why do outstanding liberals such as Diane Fienstein, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy want to ban firearms that aren't used in crimes? I'll give you a hint, they're scared of the public. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, a government that truly is of, by and for the people has no reason to fear an armed populace, for in such a case the people ARE the government.





The only way to move forward and make the people the government is to give the people a new system. One where instead of voting once every four years for a personality, we actually get to vote regularly on all aspects of our society. In other words - put us in the position we give to the politicians. Since that position will then be held by millions there will not be opportunity for the megolamaniac to form his/her addiction to power and rise up above his/her fellows as there is now.

The only problem will be - who manages the technology which allows us all to propose laws, vote on laws, propose courses of action, vote on courses of action etc?

If it's diebold we are f**ked

I can't see a solution to that part of the evolution of democracy.....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: zeronio]
    #2963504 - 08/04/04 08:39 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

My statement is based on a statistical fact.

actually it is not. may we see those statistics?

gun-related accidents are extremely rare. the use of guns in self defense is not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2963835 - 08/04/04 11:03 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

From The National Safety Council

Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths in the United States, 2002

Motor Vehicle 44,000
Poisoning 15,700
Falls 14,500
Suffocation by Inhalation or Ingestion of Food or Other Object 4,200
Drowning 3,000

* The page didn't even list deaths from firearms (it's somewhere down the list but you have to pay for the full report)


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2963886 - 08/04/04 11:19 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Evolving said:
From The National Safety Council

Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths in the United States, 2002

Motor Vehicle 44,000
Poisoning 15,700
Falls 14,500
Suffocation by Inhalation or Ingestion of Food or Other Object 4,200
Drowning 3,000

* The page didn't even list deaths from firearms (it's somewhere down the list but you have to pay for the full report)



The proper liberal response would and will be: Oh shit! Time to pass some bills against motor vehicles, anything that could be used as a poison, high elevations, food/other objects, and water. Thank god for government!


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2966697 - 08/05/04 01:29 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

actually it is not. may we see those statistics?




Eh... I didn't find the actual research, just statements like this, that appear everywhere without saying the source of information:
"Statistics show that you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the house. And the person who gets shot is more likely to be the householder than the intruder."
I also often read that majority of firearms deaths come from suicide & crimes of passion against the family & neighbours.

But it might be just anti-gun propaganda and a government plot to enslave the people. :cool:

Another question: If guns prevent crime then why doesn't the USA have the lowest crime rate in the world?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: zeronio]
    #2967314 - 08/05/04 09:39 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

"Statistics show that you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the house. And the person who gets shot is more likely to be the householder than the intruder."

have a read:

the 43:1 myth

Another question: If guns prevent crime then why doesn't the USA have the lowest crime rate in the world?

because there are other contributing factors at work which cause crime. consider switzerland and israel. the civilian population in these countries is armed to the teeth (mostly with military rifles) and even trained in their use during compulsory military service, yet they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

consider jamaica, where private gun ownership is illegal. jamaica has one of the highest violent crime rates on earth, and jamaican police are notorious for "extrajudicial" executions of civilians. some estimate that 3 jamaicans are killed every day by the jamaican police.... and they have "gun control" in jamaica.

most of eastern europe and russia have more problems with violent crime and homocide than does the united states, yet their gun laws are stricter. the same can be said of latin america.

the supply of handguns per person in the united states has tripled since the mid 1960's, yet the total quantity of homocides by handgun per year has barely risen at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2967391 - 08/05/04 10:12 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

The proper liberal response would and will be: Oh shit! Time to pass some bills against motor vehicles, anything that could be used as a poison, high elevations, food/other objects, and water.




As opposed to the proper neocon response which would be: Oh shit! After the lib's pass all those laws we need to put cameras in everybodies homes, tap their phones, oh, and make sex during daylights hours illeagl while we are at it 'cause that might be considered immoral. Hey, and we can sell the footage from the cameras to FOX for their new reality government TV series! Bonus!


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezeronio
Stranger
Male

Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2970787 - 08/06/04 01:15 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:

have a read:

the 43:1 myth






That is a good article.

Even if american way of life spread all over the globe there are still some cultural differences that are difficult for me to understand. I know that I can't get a good picture only from my US relatives that had guns all over the place - everybody in the family is or a cop or a soldier. :grin:

What about the theory that guns are needed to defend yourself against the government? I still think that it's not a very likely case. I support gun control because having a paranoid neighbour armed with assault weapons is more dangerous then some virtual threat from government. Not to mention that I wouldn't dare to fuck his wife anymore. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2971133 - 08/06/04 07:27 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

That was unintentional deaths. Most of the murders in the US are with firearms.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2971236 - 08/06/04 08:18 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

The American GI was able to beat the Germans and Japanese using the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. The 30-06 is undoubtably a better round for hitting targets at a distance than either the .223 or the 7.62 x 39.





actually, i've got an M1 Garand, and a 1903 Springfield (1935 manufacture).. sitting right behind me.

Quote:

how many successful government uprisings have there been since the 1783? How did Koresh do? How did the Montana Freemen do? Ruby Ridge?




Those were not uprisings.

David Koresh led a religious cult. Nothing illegal about that. Suspected child molestation? That is. Also suspected caches of arms. Legal, but troublesome. The government went into Waco on a wing and a prayer they'd be justified in what they did, and what they did was knowingly ignite the place. The US Government is responsible for their deaths.
What they did was breech the walls with tanks, and use the barrels to pump in gas. That's all fine and good, I guess, except they had cut electricity long before that. Obviously, there would be candles and lanterns being used, as flashlights do run out of power and they had been without electricity for a while.
That gas? Highly flammable in enclosed spaces. Now, tell me that wasn't their plan. Tell me that was a mistake.

The Freemen, I believe were attacked for passing bad checks? Not entirely familiar with that.

And Ruby Ridge was a travesty if ever there was one.

Know what they went in there for?

A government snitch managed to get the father to shorten a shotgun barrel for him. Cajoled him into cutting it down to I believe.. 18 inches.
The legal minimum for a shotgun barrel is.. get this. 18.75 inches.

So they storm their house, out in the middle of nowhere, with guns. Shoot a dog. Shoot his wife as she looked out the front door HOLDING A GODDAMNED BABY. Thought she was holding a gun. Honest mistake I guess, infants DO look a lot like pistols.

Don't fucking say a word about Ruby Ridge. If ever there was a call to start an armed revolution, it would be Ruby Ridge. They just flat out slaughtered those people, and it was totally unjustified. Totally and absolutely. Go ahead and tell yourself they were just right-wing nuts, but they were right-wing nuts with every bit as much right to still be the fuck alive as anyone else. They went in to that place like it was a military operation, not a police operation. Why? Because the fucking members of the police are a bunch of jerkoffs who enjoy pretending they're military special forces and like playing soldier.

The family at Ruby Ridge was not trying to overthrow the government. They were just trying to save their own fucking lives after they were attacked by an unknown enemy. And I say unknown, because though I don't have a picture to show you, I would bet BOTH of my testicles that the shitheads that were there to "arrest" him were wearing all-black with black face masks on and came in, guns out and screaming. That's not how you fucking deal with american citizens, and if I EVER see anything like that, you can rest assured -- I too will shoot them, and do my best to shoot first and shoot last. Sure, they say they're with the government, but YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. They're HIDING their identiy. It could be foreign powers, it could be organized crime, it could just be a robbery -- you don't know. All you know is that there are armed intruders shooting at you.

Quote:

Totalitarian governments usually tend to arm populace, because they know that people aren't going to fight the power but they'll rather slaughter each other. Iraquis were heavily armed but they didn't uprise against Saddam - they rather use the weapons against americans. The same thing happened in Yugoslavia. Genocide & ethnic cleansing are usually done by armed civilians and para military.




Er, yes and no.
Nazi Germany, for instance, was a disarmed populous. As were, I believe, the Russians.
Iraq worked with an armed populous because of a very deeply ingrained government of fear. Sure you've got a gun, but you know that if you speak out against Saddam, 18 people will hear and turn you in and you'll be shot. That's fear for you.
Yugoslavia really did not have a functional government. This all happened not very long after the collapse of Communism -- and in light of a weak, unsure government, local strongmen came to power by collecting followers with firepower. This would be pretty much an anarchistic society at that point -- ruled by warlords and their followers.

Quote:

Another question: If guns prevent crime then why doesn't the USA have the lowest crime rate in the world?




I don't know chief, why are the Japanese so good at video games, and why won't the French shower?

Or better yet, if guns CAUSE crime, why does Washington, DC have one of the highest murder rates in the country? You can't have guns there. And why does my home town, which probably has 2 or 3 guns for every person at LEAST (population about 3500, and I could probably list 7000 guns I know of, and I don't know most of the town).. why are there no murders here? In the past 100 years there has been... 1 murder. Committed by an escaped convict several years ago in order to secure a place to hide for a few days and a car, and who was later caught about 2000 miles away (and had escaped several hundred miles away from here as well).

If guns = violence.. why don't guns = violence?

Guess it's just a cultural thing. I guess people just don't have any respect for others, and only care about themselves. I guess a lot of people are just fucking self-serving idiots who will not take any responsibility for their actions.

And please explain: If I recall, the rate of violent crime in both England AND Australia ROSE after they passed their draconian gun control laws.



As for assault weapons themselves, the actual honesttogod definition of an assault weapon is simply a gun with a selector switch.. that is, semi-auto/full auto. Semi auto is one trigger pull, one round fired, full auto is continual fire till trigger is released.. also contrary to what a lot of Libbers (read:fibbers) were saying when this bill was first passed.

None of the things included in this bill increase the lethality of a gun, and none of the things in this bill reduced crime or murders at all. You couldn't even get Bill Clinton to LIE about it, that's how big of a failure it was.
It was just passed so people could feel good about doing SOMEthing.. rather than they actually admit what the problem is, that it's partially their fault, and try to take steps to work towards a real, workable, lasting solution. Nope, let's just do.. SOMETHING! right now! Yeah don't we feel good, god I wish I could suck my own cock too, must be nice being a libber.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 16 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: deafpanda]
    #2971246 - 08/06/04 08:22 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

deafpanda said:
That was unintentional deaths. Most of the murders in the US are with firearms.




Deafpanda,

It would appear to me that you are trying to lead to one of these conclusions.

That guns cause murder. (In the way hammers cause nails)
or
with out guns the murder rate would go down. (In the way that with out alcohol there would be no drunks. (see prohibition of alcohol))


First the murder rate for the us calculates out to 16,116.5 people a year for a population of 293,027,571 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html (5.5 per 100,000 people http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htus00.pdf) (Total not just guns)

This works out to a percentage of 0.00549% or statically irrelevant.
The percentage of the population that are killed by guns comes out to .00383%

You should note that the DOJ found

"Blacks were 6 times more likely to be homicide victims and 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicides in 2000.

Eighty-six percent of white murder victims were killed by whites, and 94% of black victims were killed by blacks.

Males are most often the victims and the perpetrators in homicides: males were 10 times more likely than females to commit murder, and male and female offenders were more likely to target male than female victims."


So following the same logic baning all black's from the US would reduce the murder rate significantly!

The problem is that these are just numbers. statstics generated by a bloated government to justify it self.

Just remember that figures don't lie but all lier's figure!

On a side note I have read that there are 5 guns in the US for every man, woman, and child. If that is true it means that .000077% of the guns are used in murder. This is a VARY small number to justify the removal of all guns.

NOTE: I am not raciest. I just used it to make a point!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedeafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Cyber]
    #2971271 - 08/06/04 08:31 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I was not really wanting to be drawn into the gun debate, I was just pointing out how the statistics mentioned earlier were a little irrelevant - accidents with guns I'm sure are not a good measure of their dangers.

Guns don't cause murder. They do make it a hell of a lot easier though. I can't really see any legitamate use for guns, myself, yet so many Americans own them. Sure, there's self defence, but you only need to defend yourself with a gun if the other guy's got a gun. I'm not saying guns should be banned in America, but that they should never have been legal. Now they are legal, it would be impossible and impractical to ban them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: deafpanda]
    #2972844 - 08/06/04 05:02 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You should tell that to the founding fathers. They decided that it was in the best interest for the American people to have guns, that it was up there with freedom of speech, freedom of religion and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Obviously they didn't just see guns as having no legitimate use. Perhaps they had learned from the revolution against Britain, that when the government becomes unreasonable, it's up to the people to rise up and defend their natural freedoms

After all, no government will last forever, and no republic will forever stay free. They tried to help America stay free at the very beginning, but nothing will stay static, and the government will always want more. Whether it happens today, tomorrow or 500 years from now, Americans must have a means to protect themselves when the inevitable happens


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Ravus]
    #2973007 - 08/06/04 05:37 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
Whether it happens today, tomorrow or 500 years from now, Americans must have a means to protect themselves when the inevitable happens


Well said. By what right do we deny future generations this means?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #2974287 - 08/07/04 12:26 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Please read the whole thread before going off on a long-winded rant.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2974979 - 08/07/04 09:20 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Just like to post an article that sums up many of the facts listed in this thread:

Guns, Gun Laws, and Liberty

The heart of virtually every citizen of America went out to the family of little Kayla Rolland after a classmate took her life with a .32 caliber revolver on February 29 in Mt. Morris, Michigan. As with the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado last year, we all feel pained and distraught about such senseless violence, and we wonder what has gone wrong and what can be done to prevent any recurrences. In the wake of these tragedies, legislators in every state are taking up the issue of gun control.

The challenge is to express appropriate grief and concern about these things without allowing hyped emotions, rhetorical window-dressing, or futile "quick fixes" to rule the day. Political jockeying to prove who is most outraged by violence must not overwhelm facts, logic, and experience.

One superficial but unfortunately popular reaction to school shootings is summarized this way: "Guns are bad; more laws are good." The facts are more complicated. Guns are not bad when they are not misused, not accessible to people who misuse them, and used harmlessly in sport or recreation; they are good when they thwart crime. Laws are not good when they injure the rights, property, or lives of the innocent - when they are ineffective or unenforceable; or when they act as cheap political substitutes for a problem's real cure.

--Proliferation of Laws--
Nationwide, according to John R. Lott, Jr., there are more than 20,000 gun-control laws that regulate everything from who can own guns and how they can be bought to where a person can possess or use them. "The biggest problem with gun-control laws," writes Lott, "is that those who are intent on harming others, and especially those who plan to commit suicide, are the least likely to obey them."1

The two students who committed the Columbine murders broke at least 17 state and federal weapons-control laws. The student who shot Kayla Rolland apparently got the revolver he used from the bedroom of a fugitive being sought on drug charges. The boy's uncle was arrested on an outstanding felony warrant for concealing stolen property. This raises a question that those who push for more gun-control laws need to answer but rarely try: Can we realistically expect criminal suspects who blithely break many laws to somehow obey another gun law?

Does the mere prevalence of guns in American society contribute to gun violence? If statistics matter, the answer is no. A study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that firearm-related deaths in the United States dropped 21 percent over the five-year period from 1993 to 1997 and non-fatal firearm-related injuries fell 41 percent. Including all gunshot wounds reported at emergency rooms "whether intentional, accidental, or self-inflicted," the CDCP study said that gun-related deaths fell from 15.4 per 100,000 people in 1993 to about 12.1 per 100,000 people in 1997.2 Moreover, statistics compiled by the U.S. Justice Department's National Crime Survey reveal that 88 percent of all violent crimes do not involve firearms.3

Firearms ownership in America is higher today than at the start of the decade. An estimated 80 million people own upward of 240 million guns. What percentage of them were involved in intentional or accidental deaths in the most recent year for which data are available? Barely one one-hundredth of one per-cent. Children under five are more likely to drown in water buckets or die in fires that they themselves start with cigarette lighters.4

While the misuse of firearms generates publicity, the proper use of them for Self-defense rarely does. Americans use firearms for protection more than two million times each year. Ninety-eight percent of the time, they only brandish their weapons or fire warning shots. However, each year gun-wielding citizens kill between 2,000 and 3,000 criminals in self-defense, an astounding three times the number killed by police.5 In a recent five-year period, the National Self-Defense Survey found that the number of legal, defensive gun uses was three to four times that of illegal, offensive gun uses - and that civilians using guns in self-defense save a minimum of 240,000 lives annually.6

Yet what about the frightening statistic that 13 children die every day from guns? They are not all innocent six-year-olds who would be saved by trigger locks. Eleven of the 13 are 15-to-19-year-olds, and most of them are killed as a result of gang violence.

--Concealed Weapons--
Violent crime is 81 percent higher in states that do not have concealed-carry laws than in those that do. Robbery is 105 percent higher and murder is 86 percent higher where law-abiding citizens are denied the right to carry concealed guns. Moreover, the FBI's annual crime figures for all 3,054 counties over a recent 15-year period show that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also had the largest drops in violent crimes.7

Evidence is strong, based on data emerging in the last couple of decades, that the one strategy that offers the best hope of curtailing crime and the misuse of guns is swift and strong punishment of violent offenders. It may seem strange to some advocates of more gun-control laws that going after the guilty offers more promise than going after the innocent, but that's what the facts show.

Finally, we must recognize that violence in any form occurs when individuals lack respect for the lives and property of others. Ultimately, anti-gun laws - even the effective ones - deal more with symptoms than they do with causes. We must as individuals address this on the home front as we raise and nurture our children. The values that once were the glue that held us together must be strengthened by home, church, school, and institutions public and private. Parents must be given more freedom to choose the best and safest schools for their children. In short, ridding our society of handgun violence requires that we recognize that guns are less the problem than are certain people, certain values, and uncertain laws.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the original publication, Lawrence Reed was president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market research and educational organization in Midland, Michigan, and chairman of FEE's Board of Trustees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun Laws Can Be Dangerous, Too," Wall Street Journal, May 12, 1999, p. A-22.

2. "Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries: United States, 1993-1997,"Morbidity and Monthly Weekly, November 19, 1999, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, D.C.

3. Morgan O. Reynolds and W. W. Caruth 111, "Myths About Gun Control," National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, Texas, December 1992,

4. John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," American Experiment Quarterly, Summer 1999, p. 14.

5. Reynolds and Caruth, p. 10.

6. Glenn Otero, "Ten Myths About Gun Control," Golden State Center for Policy Studies, January 6, 1999, p. 8. This report can be seen at http://www.claremont.org/gsp/gsp60.cfm.

7. "More Guns - Less Crime," Investor's Business Daily editorial, May 8, 1998, p. A-32.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2975279 - 08/07/04 12:28 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

" Please read the whole thread before going off on a long-winded rant. "

Does my verbosity frighten you?

Fear not!

For I only use one word at a time, like any other.



If you actually re-read my post there, chief, it is simply a collection of responses from comments others made in this thread.

If I replied to everything in this thread I disagreed with, how could I have not read the thread.

Or maybe you saw a long post, got scared, and skipped it.

gg no re

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #2975321 - 08/07/04 12:45 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

i was referring to your rant about waco/ruby ridge


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2975573 - 08/07/04 02:03 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

"i was referring to your rant about waco/ruby ridge "

There's a great deal of misunderstanding about both incidences encouraged by the government. They don't like admitting when they fuck up bad. I found it highly offensive that anybody would believe that either incident was an attempt to overthrow the government. And while David Koresh in my opinion was a certifiable whacko who very well might have committed crimes against children, and quite possibly got what was coming to him, there were children inside that compound when our government created an extreme fire hazard. As for Ruby Ridge, that was just an all-out massacre. A very minor offense, that might I add never ended with a conviction due to -- get this -- entrapment by the governmeent, and it was met by yet another shoot-first strike. What that basically adds up to is the government cajoling and harrassing somebody to break the law, and when they finally give in, the government kills them and feels justified in doing so.

I'd equate it to a 20 year old young woman entiring a high school to dig up pot dealers, and then arresting them. Of-fucking-course I'd say I can find pot even if I can't, if I've got a hot piece of ass squirming in my lap mewing "pplleease?" in my ear. To expect anybody, let alone some 17 year old guy, to resist that is inhuman. AAhh but now I really AM straying off-topic..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #2975596 - 08/07/04 02:07 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I'd equate it to a 20 year old young woman entiring a high school to dig up pot dealers, and then arresting them. Of-fucking-course I'd say I can find pot even if I can't, if I've got a hot piece of ass squirming in my lap mewing "pplleease?" in my ear. To expect anybody, let alone some 17 year old guy, to resist that is inhuman. AAhh but now I really AM straying off-topic..




Ha, I saw that on Boston Public about four years ago.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLothar121
Marijuanaactivist
Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 105
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 17 years, 12 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2975736 - 08/07/04 02:52 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

It makes no difference. The assault weapons ban is an assault on our 2nd amendment.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Ancalagon]
    #2976980 - 08/07/04 11:01 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

"I'd equate it to a 20 year old young woman entiring a high school to dig up pot dealers, and then arresting them. Of-fucking-course I'd say I can find pot even if I can't, if I've got a hot piece of ass squirming in my lap mewing "pplleease?" in my ear. To expect anybody, let alone some 17 year old guy, to resist that is inhuman. AAhh but now I really AM straying off-topic..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha, I saw that on Boston Public about four years ago. "



Actually it was in Playboy about a year, year and a half ago or so. 

Altoona, PA.

it is a pretty close example.  through nagging, begging and pleading, a government agent manages to get somebody to break the law, and then brings all hell down on them.

see also:  gas station compliance checks.  that's where they find a gas station with a teenaged boy working, and send in 17-18 year old girls in low-cut shirts to lean over the counter, giggle, and ask for a pack of cigarettes.

btw:  apparently, if you tip the kid behind the counter off, and tell him he probably doesn't want to do that because you just saw those girls in that car, right there, with that gentleman with a clipboard and a uniform....  that cop gets really, really upset with you.
No.. not me..  my dad.  :blush:  and since i'm half drunk and rambling I'll finish:  They left in a tizzy, he bought his tea and payed for his gas, and the cop confronted him when he left.
"Do you know what you just did!"

"Yeah, I saved that poor kid's job!"

"Wull!-"

"- Well nothing, asshole.  Tricking some teenaged boy by flashing him some titty, playing mind games with him like that, you know damned well it's wrong.  And I'll tell you now that if I see this again, you can bet I'll let the clerk know what's going on."

hehe..  he left the cop standing there sputtering..  great shit man, really.  it's not often you get to see your own parents take a stand against injustice like that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: deafpanda]
    #2980956 - 08/09/04 09:43 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I can't really see any legitamate use for guns, myself, yet so many Americans own them.

you can't?

how about self-defense? hunting? target shooting?

Sure, there's self defence, but you only need to defend yourself with a gun if the other guy's got a gun.

...or he's stronger than you, more adept at violence than you are, or is carrying some sort of weapon. there are plenty of people in the US (and england) who are victimized every year by people who were not carrying a firearm.

legally-owned guns are used in self-defense over a million times a year in the united states. what would happen if all of these people were prohibited from arming themselves?

the great majority of crimes involving firearms are commited by people who are prohibited from owning or carrying firearms (previous offenders). these people already are prohibited from arming themselves.

I'm not saying guns should be banned in America, but that they should never have been legal.

:rotfl:

still steaming about that ass-whoopin' armed americans handed you brits?  :tongue:


seriously though... i have found that of all the different controversies in the political sphere, the anti-gun argument is the one most rooted in ignorance of the actual facts, verifiable statistics, and the real situation at hand. people disagree about guns not because they have different values, as they do with say, abortion or welfare, (we all want there to be less violent crime), but because some of us do not have all the information.

people should be permitted to own and carry firearms. preventing them from doing so, thereby making firearms an illegal black market commodity available only to criminals, is not going to reduce violent crime, but increase it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2981046 - 08/09/04 10:18 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

I just want to echo mushmaster here in saying that criminals will always have guns. If you don't believe that then you are inherently lost. Only people hurt by gun laws are the law abiding citizens.

As for assault weapons, there is no reason to fear them. I'm way more worried about the guy with a Remington 700 that can produce 1-3 MOA groups out to 500+ yards.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2981056 - 08/09/04 10:21 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:


people should be permitted to own and carry firearms. preventing them from doing so, thereby making firearms an illegal black market commodity available only to criminals, is not going to reduce violent crime, but increase it.






Few are trying to ban guns, just make them regulated. I don't see how you're points argue against regulation of the sell of guns such as closing the gun-show loop hole, registration, waiting day period/background check.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2981101 - 08/09/04 10:33 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Few are trying to ban guns

some are, and i was addressing them in general. reasonable regulation is fine. the trouble is that much of it is not reasonable.

I don't see how you're points argue against regulation of the sell of guns such as closing the gun-show loop hole, registration, waiting day period/background check.

when you buy a gun, you should be required to pass a background check that searches for a history of serious mental illness or convictions for violent crime. in order to carry a loaded weapon in public, one should have to pass a small, inexpensive test that shows that one is proficient in marksmanship and understands what is entailed by legal armed self-defense. that is reasonable regulation. there is no reason for a waiting period or registration. there is no reason for blanket banning of carrying concealed weapons in public.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2981102 - 08/09/04 10:33 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Perhaps a paranoid view here, but I feel it nonetheless. Registration leads to confiscation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2981121 - 08/09/04 10:40 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Why should you have to take a test to prove proficiency at driving but not to prove proficiency with an instrument whose actual purpose is to kill or maim?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2981153 - 08/09/04 10:49 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)


Why should you have to take a test to prove proficiency at driving but not to prove proficiency with an instrument whose actual purpose is to kill or maim?


i said that it was prudent to require a test of proficiency for those who wish to carry a weapon in public.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2981296 - 08/09/04 11:18 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
Few are trying to ban guns, just make them regulated. I don't see how you're points argue against regulation of the sell of guns such as closing the gun-show loop hole, registration, waiting day period/background check.



I have bought several guns at gun shows and they all did a background check.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: z@z.com]
    #2981976 - 08/09/04 02:12 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

well my best friend just bought a barely-used shotgun at a gun show without having to even show an ID.

Its a loophole at gun shows, not that the gun show itself is a loophole.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2981999 - 08/09/04 02:18 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

mushmaster said:

Why should you have to take a test to prove proficiency at driving but not to prove proficiency with an instrument whose actual purpose is to kill or maim?


i said that it was prudent to require a test of proficiency for those who wish to carry a weapon in public.





right, and I was saying that one should pass a test in order to just own guns even if its just to use in their own house.  just my opinion.

maybe there could be licences for a class of guns like 'handguns' or 'rifles/shotguns' the way they do for motorcycles and cars (is there a separate licence for trucks and buses?). this is just an idea i'm shooting around :wink:.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2982214 - 08/09/04 03:10 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
well my best friend just bought a barely-used shotgun at a gun show without having to even show an ID.



Where was this? Was the seller a licensed dealer or a private party?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (08/09/04 03:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 16 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
    #2982303 - 08/09/04 03:29 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

hehehe, Last show I went to I picked up a Russian SKS with 30 round clip, A Lorkin 22 pistol, a CHEEP 380 pistol and a Mouser 8mm rifle and did not have to show my ID once.

All you have to do is buy from the "Individuals" who are selling there "Private Collections". Oh and not live in California, Washington D.C., or New York.

You may also note that MOST states have no restrictions on black powder weapons like those used in the 1700's to 1800's. Although some may laugh at you for using an old weapon like that, My 1861 Navel revolver will still put a 44 slug through a 3" phone book at 50 feet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Cyber]
    #2982337 - 08/09/04 03:35 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

The fact is, that there is no 'gun show loophole.' Sellers and buyers are still subject to the same laws that govern their actions away from gun shows. How this can be seen as a loophole is beyond logic.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Cyber]
    #2982444 - 08/09/04 03:59 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

You may also note that MOST states have no restrictions on black powder weapons like those used in the 1700's to 1800's. Although some may laugh at you for using an old weapon like that, My 1861 Navel revolver will still put a 44 slug through a 3" phone book at 50 feet.




LOL, reminds me of lock stock and two smoking barrels.


oh and to evolving, it was a private dealer. i consider that a loophole to avoid having to do a background check and register.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
    #2983337 - 08/09/04 07:54 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

"Few are trying to ban guns, just make them regulated. I don't see how you're points argue against regulation of the sell of guns such as closing the gun-show loop hole, registration, waiting day period/background check. "

Is no such thing.  To sell a gun at a gun show you must be a licensed dealer, and as such must run a background check.  PA's got an instant background check, works great.

Now, private party selling to private party.. does not require a background check.  However, there's a lot of stipulations that go into that.  Some people do just take a gun with them to a gun show, stick a flag in the barrel and walk around trying to sell that.  That's not legal in all states anymore if i remember things correctly.

"maybe there could be licences for a class of guns like 'handguns' or 'rifles/shotguns' the way they do for motorcycles and cars (is there a separate licence for trucks and buses?). this is just an idea i'm shooting around"

If there was such a thing, it would destroy the spirit of the second amendment.
The second amendment was written so that ANYBODY -- you, me, jim-bob, bruce -- we all can be armed.  Licensing, first off, costs money.  Secondly it gives the government the authority to tell you, a law-abiding citizen with a clean record, that no, you cannot own a firearm.
With the wrong people in power, such a system could very quickly begin denying ALL people licenses.  Or perhaps they would make the cost prohibitive to all except the wealthy -- let's say, $3,000 yearly for the license to own guns.

That's anti-American.  In fact, that would harken back to the idea of a priviledged upper class.  You know, the very thing that Americans seperated themselves from when they cut ties with Europe.

You have a right to defend yourself from harm, a right guarenteed by the second amendment.  That right exists to ALL men, regardless of their personal wealth.  A poor man might not have as much material goods to defend as a rich man, but simply having less does not disqualify you from a natural right. 

The Bill of Rights contains many natural rights, and what is meant by that is a right that everybody, regardless of position, power, race, religion, location, vocation or personality, is inherently free to do certain things, and to restrict those freedoms is to become tyrannical, it to impose restrictions on people that are contrary to being free.  You're not free if you're not able to speak your mind, you're not free if you're required to follow a certain religion, you're not free if you're required to serve as witness against yourself, you're not free if you're required to submit to random searches and seizures, and you're not free if you're denied the ability to defend yourself against aggressors.

"You may also note that MOST states have no restrictions on black powder weapons like those used in the 1700's to 1800's. Although some may laugh at you for using an old weapon like that, My 1861 Navel revolver will still put a 44 slug through a 3" phone book at 50 feet. "

Nope..  they're considered antiquated technology.



Oh, final word about the "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist.

As I've said, there are already laws on the books that deal with it.  To set up a table and sell guns at a gun show you've got to be a licensed dealer.  The "loophole" only applies to private party to private party sales.  More and more often gun shows aren't allowing private party sales at the gun show, nor the advertising of guns by private parties.

Essentially to close the "loophole" you would have to forbid private party sales of guns.  That means you couldn't sell them in a newspaper, or, if you did you would have to go through a licensed firearms dealer to run a background check, file paperwork, charge you 50 to 100 dollars extra..

"seriously though... i have found that of all the different controversies in the political sphere, the anti-gun argument is the one most rooted in ignorance of the actual facts, verifiable statistics, and the real situation at hand. people disagree about guns not because they have different values, as they do with say, abortion or welfare, (we all want there to be less violent crime), but because some of us do not have all the information. "

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Most of the people yelling for gun control not only know little to nothing about guns themselves, but many are also unwilling to learn anything about them.  Many elected officials routinely make false statements in speeches about gun control, either through ignorance and an unwillingless to research facts or through intentional misinformation to a public unwilling to do fact-checking of their own because they support the goals of the speaker.

It's like Stevie Wonder telling you you've got food in your teeth.
They don't have any clue what they're talking about.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2983571 - 08/09/04 09:13 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
right, and I was saying that one should pass a test in order to just own guns even if its just to use in their own house.  just my opinion.

maybe there could be licences for a class of guns like 'handguns' or 'rifles/shotguns' the way they do for motorcycles and cars (is there a separate licence for trucks and buses?). this is just an idea i'm shooting around :wink:.



Shamelessly stolen from Michael Badnarik's webpage:

"Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. "


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Mushmonkey]
    #2984216 - 08/10/04 12:07 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Oh, final word about the "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist.

As I've said, there are already laws on the books that deal with it. To set up a table and sell guns at a gun show you've got to be a licensed dealer. The "loophole" only applies to private party to private party sales.




:wtf:?? what the hell are you talking about, you say there's no loophole and then you go on to describe the loophole...are you really that retarded?  I was referring to private party sales, did you even read the whole thread?

Quote:

More and more often gun shows aren't allowing private party sales at the gun show



good.

Quote:

you would have to forbid private party sales of guns. That means you couldn't sell them in a newspaper, or, if you did you would have to go through a licensed firearms dealer to run a background check, file paperwork, charge you 50 to 100 dollars extra..




oh no! extra paperwork?! loss of some money by using a middleman?! just in order to try to prevent a criminal or mentally diseased person from buying a gun?! oh the horror!! :shocked:

Quote:

you have a right to defend yourself from harm, a right guarenteed by the second amendment.




Perhaps you should read it again, it talks about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,", not about killing intruders by yourself.  its speaking of the entire state's freedom, about being free from military takeover.  that's what its referring to.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: z@z.com]
    #2984239 - 08/10/04 12:16 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

"Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. "





funny you should say bring badnarik up, i was going to mention him as an example of how emotional the pro-guns side gets as well (MM was saying the gun control side is based solely on emotions), just different emotions: paranoia and fear (though i guess fear is present on both sides).

anyway, responding to his quote look at the first two amendments:

Quote:

Article [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




when congress is not supposed to make any law that would abridge a right, it seems that the writers were very clear about it. but even the freedom of speech has to be abridged in cases like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

like jefferson said:

Quote:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors




--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2984782 - 08/10/04 03:33 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Perhaps you should read it again



Take your own advice. Then try to explain why the words "the people" mean anything but.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 16 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2985049 - 08/10/04 08:06 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:

anyway, responding to his quote look at the first two amendments:

Quote:

Article [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




when congress is not supposed to make any law that would abridge a right, it seems that the writers were very clear about it. but even the freedom of speech has to be abridged in cases like shouting fire in a crowded theater.






I have heard this "Shouting Fire" crap too much. It is not illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater, provided there is a fire. To do so when there is not a fire is illegal. This comes from a 1919 supream court ruling where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would
not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." To use this analogy for gun controle it would be like gaging everyone who walks in to the theater so that there is no chance of anyone yelling fire. Or requiring that you have a license to use the word "Fire". This license would require that you have a full background check to make sure you are not one of the people who is prone to yelling fire when there is not one.

To your second amendment quote, Did you read it?

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does "Shall Not Be Infringed" mean?


"A well regulated Militia" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "Militia"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people"

"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"

"to keep and bear Arms" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"

The militia is simply all adult males capable of handling a weapon. These days, if women showed up, I suspect local militia leaders wouldn't dare complain. "The militia" is not to be confused with "a select militia." A select militia is a group which receives pay, training, and tasks above and beyond what is expected of the general population. The National Guard is an example of a select militia.

That said, What did our founding Fathers have to say about it?

"The said constitution shall never be constructed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" --- Samuel Adams

"Arms discourage and keep the invader in awe. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them" --- Thomas Paine

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." --- John Adams

"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." --- James Wilson,

"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in THE PEOPLE" --- Fisher Ames

"The militia when properly formed are THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES and include all men capable of bearing arms." --- Richard Henry Lee

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime. --- Thomas Jefferson

"The constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ---- James Madison

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."--Thomas Jefferson

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." (Samuel Adams)

"THE PEOPLE are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their PRIVATE arms."-- Tench Coxe

"A free people ought to be armed" --- George Washington

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them" ---- Thomas Jefferson

St. George Tucker (1752-1828) who fought in the Revolutionary War, who served as a colonel in the Virgina Militia, and who was a friend of Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and this may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, UNDER ANY COLOR OR PRETEXT WHATSOEVER, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Cyber]
    #2985571 - 08/10/04 10:49 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

In response to all your quotes from guys who lives 200+ years ago, again:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"
-Thomas Jefferson


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2985594 - 08/10/04 10:55 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

What does "Shall Not Be Infringed" mean?





Well, when I looked up the definition, it was "to go past the usual limit". Which would obviously be up for interpretation. Noone is calling for absolute outlawing of guns, just some small and reasonable requirements. For those that keep going on about inalienable rights to own arms I pose two questions:

1)Are there any people (including convicted felons and mentally diseased people) that should not have the right to bear arms?

2) is there any gun or arm that the people should not have a right to own?


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 16 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2985636 - 08/10/04 11:15 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
In response to all your quotes from guys who lives 200+ years ago, again:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"
-Thomas Jefferson




Yes but our founding Fathers put a method in place to make those changes. It is not to ignore to constution! If it truly was no longer needed and the natural law of self defense was something that no one needed then we can call a constitutional congress, amend the constution to reflect the changes in society, and have it ratified through the states.
Although it is vary evident that things have not changed in over 3000 years!

The Ancient Egyptian scribe Ipu-wer wrote,
"The land is full of gangs; a man goes to work with a shield... Crime is everywhere, there are no men like there used to be... Hearts are violent, storm sweeps the land, there's blood everywhere and no shortage of dead... What shall we do? What can we do? There is no good man anywhere... The hotheaded man says "If I knew where God was, I'd serve him."... If only this were the end of man, no more conceiving, no more births! Then the land would cease to shout and tumult would be no more! Woe is me for the grief of this time!... The wise says "yes," the fool says "no," and the ignorant is satisfied... Authority, knowledge and truth are with us, but we only make turmoil, and nobody listens to what anybody says."

That is as true today as it was over 3000 years ago. Man has not grown or become more enlightened. If you believe that man has become so enlightened than place a sign in your front yard that says "I support gun control, This is a gun free house!" You will find out just how enlightened man is!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2985637 - 08/10/04 11:15 AM (19 years, 7 months ago)

1)Are there any people (including convicted felons and mentally diseased people) that should not have the right to bear arms?

add children to the list.

2) is there any gun or arm that the people should not have a right to own?

back when the bill of rights was written, projectile weapons were either called arms or ordinance. arms meant personal weapons that could be carried by a single person, such as muskets, rifles, and pistols. ordinance meant cannons and mortars. the bill of rights has never gauranteed any right of citizens to keep and bear artillery.

i think that modern "ordinance" like artillery peices, heavy machine guns, missile launchers, RPG's, hand grenades, chemical weapons, etc. are not to be owned by regular private citizens, nor does the constitution gaurantee protection of a right to do so.

however, i do think that modern rifles, handguns, and shotguns should all be legal for private citizens to own, and i do believe that the constitution gaurantees protection of our right to do so.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 10 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
    #2987967 - 08/10/04 07:20 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

"what the hell are you talking about, you say there's no loophole and then you go on to describe the loophole...are you really that retarded? I was referring to private party sales, did you even read the whole thread?"

As I said there is no loophole. It's how the law is designed -- private party to private party sales do not fall under regulation, with stipulations.

"Perhaps you should read it again, it talks about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,", not about killing intruders by yourself. its speaking of the entire state's freedom, about being free from military takeover. that's what its referring to. "

That is your interpretation, which I hope you do see, as it is very obvious, is only an interpretation.

Personally, I would be of the mind to believe that the 'security of a free State' would by definition include the security of each and every person within that state, not merely of the state as a political entity.

Security covers a lot of things, not neccessarily intruders from outside. Security included being safe from any aggressors, foreign or domestic.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

Funny, but knowing Thomas Jefferson, and reading that quote, I would say that he is NOT arguing for a LESSING or CHANGING of rights, but rather a GROWTH of inalienable rights native to all humankind.
As times change, to keep pace with things, new rights and freedoms may become known that will have to be protected.

I do not think a developed, enlightened mind would ever want to restrict or lessen inalienable rights. I do think a developed, enlightened mind would seek greater freedom and rights, and not seek to shackle their own hands willingly.

Now please, look me in the eyes and tell me that you honestly and truthfully believe that Thomas Jefferson made that statement thinking that some day we would understand that he meant our natural rights that are not granted, but native to us and impervious to infringement by government whim, should some day BE infringed upon.

No, I don't think he did, and I think you KNOW you're lying to yourself if you think he was. I think you know very well that such a quote could only mean that while we have acknowledged these inalienable rights that are granted to us by none at our birth, there very well may be other rights that we have not today become aware of and some day this list of rights may need to be expanded upon to include other rights of mankind that none shall infringe or impede.



Too many godforsaken ostriches in this world. Too many people don't understand the simple fact that it's never been the things we have that cause our problems, but rather we cause our own problems. Create a responsible, intelligent and moral society, and each house could be issued a rocket launcher and a tank and nobody would be hurt.

Never forget it's always the idiots that fuck up society, and you should only deal with the idiots when solving problems they create. To do otherwise punishes many responsible men and still allows many idiots the freedom to commit mischief.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Cyber]
    #2988312 - 08/10/04 08:27 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Cyber said:
"A well regulated Militia" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "Militia"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people"

"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"

"to keep and bear Arms" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"





Damn. You beat me to it.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCyber
Ash
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 10 months, 16 days
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: z@z.com]
    #2988330 - 08/10/04 08:31 PM (19 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

z@z.com said:
Quote:

Cyber said:
"A well regulated Militia" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "Militia"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people"

"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"

"to keep and bear Arms" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"





Damn. You beat me to it.




:lol:  :thumbup: :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "assault weapon" hysteria in the media
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Anonymous 9,332 134 11/12/04 01:24 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 4,176 42 05/10/03 11:30 AM
by Xlea321
* Text of new Assault Weapons Ban introduced in Senate
( 1 2 all )
wingnutx 2,843 28 08/11/03 07:34 AM
by shakta
* legal assault weapons ?! Tasty_Smurf_House 774 11 09/13/04 09:37 AM
by RandalFlagg
* what is the militia?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 2,470 32 11/12/04 10:03 PM
by retread
* Assault rifle ban debate
( 1 2 3 all )
RandalFlagg 5,200 49 09/12/04 04:16 PM
by Northernsoul
* Goodbye Government Tyranny, Hello Assault Rifle!
( 1 2 3 4 all )
retread 4,472 62 09/18/04 07:20 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Interview with the woman Bush allegedly sexually assaulted
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
LearyfanS 6,867 92 07/24/03 06:14 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,487 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 19 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.