|
Anonymous
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
#2960363 - 08/03/04 01:52 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?



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, 9 months ago) |
|
|

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
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
#2960827 - 08/03/04 03:32 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
the "assault weapons" ban ends sept. 13. stock up while you can.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?


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, 9 months ago) |
|
|
they don't?
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
#2961620 - 08/03/04 07:45 PM (19 years, 9 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...
|
Vvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Tao]
#2962443 - 08/03/04 11:05 PM (19 years, 9 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.

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.
|
zeronio
Stranger


Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
#2962975 - 08/04/04 02:19 AM (19 years, 9 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.
|
CJay
Dark Stranger


Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
#2963142 - 08/04/04 04:10 AM (19 years, 9 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.....
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: zeronio]
#2963504 - 08/04/04 08:39 AM (19 years, 9 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.
|
Evolving
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, 9 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.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
#2963886 - 08/04/04 11:19 AM (19 years, 9 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'
|
zeronio
Stranger


Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
#2966697 - 08/05/04 01:29 AM (19 years, 9 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. 
Another question: If guns prevent crime then why doesn't the USA have the lowest crime rate in the world?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: zeronio]
#2967314 - 08/05/04 09:39 AM (19 years, 9 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.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Ancalagon]
#2967391 - 08/05/04 10:12 AM (19 years, 9 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.
|
zeronio
Stranger


Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: ]
#2970787 - 08/06/04 01:15 AM (19 years, 9 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. 
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.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
#2971133 - 08/06/04 07:27 AM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
That was unintentional deaths. Most of the murders in the US are with firearms.
|
Mushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout


Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 6 months, 29 days
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Evolving]
#2971236 - 08/06/04 08:18 AM (19 years, 9 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.
|
Cyber
Ash


Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 1,476
Loc: Dearborn Michigan
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: deafpanda]
#2971246 - 08/06/04 08:22 AM (19 years, 9 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!
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: 'Assault' Weapons [Re: Cyber]
#2971271 - 08/06/04 08:31 AM (19 years, 9 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.
|
Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker


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, 9 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.
|
|