# Gun banning and fast and furious...



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

There may be more to the claim that the "Fast and Furious" disaster was actually aimed at private ownership of firearms in the states.  The following article details the type of guns that were allowed to walk versus the type of gun the cartels actually prefer.   The price point on the weapons details that buying guns in the U.S. is more expensive for the cartels than getting them on the black market.  The article...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/smoking-gun...ets-of-ban-efforts-but-not-wanted-by-cartels/



> AK-pattern rifles and pistols, and AR-pattern rifles are some of the most common semi-auto firearms in America. Interest in these weapons skyrocketed due to the drama anti-gun organizations drummed up when they coined the phrase &#8220;assault weapon,&#8221; attaching it to these and similar firearms in order to craft the 1994 AW ban. The side effect was to make these firearms far more desirable. Today, entire shooting sports have been developed around the AR in particular.
> Interestingly enough, the selective-fire versions of these weapons can be had far more cheaply on the black market than the semi-automatic version in U.S gun shops (selective-fire versions, if they can be found, require an extensive background check conducted over weeks, and cost tens of thousands of dollars). A selective fire AK-47 or AKM can be had for $100 or (far less) depending on conditions on the black market, while semi-automatic versions routinely cost $*400* and up in U.S. gun stores.
> AR-15 rifles routinely cost $750 for the most basic versions, and quality versions can easily run more than $1000 each. The cartels raid armories and buy selective-fire M-16 and M-4 rifles from deserting or *corrupt Mexican military members* for far less than the semi-automatic rifles finding their way to the cartels with federal government assistance, or obtain them from the same South American armories that they get their grenades from. It is a bit harder to pin-down a &#8220;street price&#8221; for an M-16/M-4 in Mexico, but cartels can probably obtain them for $5o0 or less.
> The point, of course, is that it isn&#8217;t remotely cost-effective for cartels to buy these weapons in the U.S.
> Yet the AK- and AR-pattern weapons that are most bitterly opposed by gun-grabbing groups and politicians in the United States are the most common weapons purchased by Operation Fast and Furious.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

I doubt this argument will drop the ban on AK weapons. I am for the ban, and I am pro gun. Why? Because I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of *every* red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally. I don't want to see them in public at rallies, or similar events, instead I prefer to see them in the hands of police or military under those conditions. I don't want to hear one was use in any sort of crime, especially by cartels either. I would think price isn't an issue for cartels, it is availability.

The only time I want to see these weapons in the public&#8217;s hands is when everybody needs one to protect the country. Sorry gun enthusiasts who get off shooting such a weapon and want the ban lifted. I think the ban should be lifted when needed. Yes, that would be in an ideal world.


----------



## granfire (Oct 29, 2011)

I can understand the thrill it offers a shooter to fire such a gun. And I don't even mind competitive marksmen to have one. 

Just Joe Smoe does not need one.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> I can understand the thrill it offers a shooter to fire such a gun. And I don't even mind competitive marksmen to have one. Just Joe Smoe does not need one.


problem is where do we draw the line to say one gun is bad and one is not?   An AK is not more or less of a danger then say a 12 gauge that you can buy at your local walmart.  The AK is just became the poster child for the anti gun crowd and recieves bad rep kinda like the pit bull dog.


----------



## granfire (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> problem is where do we draw the line to say one gun is bad and one is not?   An AK is not more or less of a danger then say a 12 gauge that you can buy at your local walmart.  The AK is just became the poster child for the anti gun crowd and recieves bad rep kinda like the pit bull dog.



Try to knock something out of a tree with a shotgun a mile down range....

Guns have no alternate purpose than to go boom and make a life thing a dead thing. Targets are really only a training device.

I do agree, in itself any gun is as good or as bad as any other. But like pitbulls, certain guns attract a certain kind of 'user' who tends to abuse the item in similar manner.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I doubt this argument will drop the ban on AK weapons. I am for the ban, and I am pro gun. Why? Because I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of *every* red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally. I don't want to see them in public at rallies, or similar events, instead I prefer to see them in the hands of police or military under those conditions. I don't want to hear one was use in any sort of crime, especially by cartels either. I would think price isn't an issue for cartels, it is availability.
> 
> The only time I want to see these weapons in the public&#8217;s hands is when everybody needs one to protect the country. Sorry gun enthusiasts who get off shooting such a weapon and want the ban lifted. I think the ban should be lifted when needed. Yes, that would be in an ideal world.



Most people who favor bans on so-called 'assault weapons' don't know what they are.  Case in point ^^^


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> I can understand the thrill it offers a shooter to fire such a gun. And I don't even mind competitive marksmen to have one.
> 
> Just Joe Smoe does not need one.



Joe Smoe has a legal right under the 2nd Amendment.  Your objection is noted and dismissed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> Try to knock something out of a tree with a shotgun a mile down range....
> 
> Guns have no alternate purpose than to go boom and make a life thing a dead thing. Targets are really only a training device.
> 
> I do agree, in itself any gun is as good or as bad as any other. But like pitbulls, certain guns attract a certain kind of 'user' who tends to abuse the item in similar manner.



First, so-called 'assault rifles' don't have that kind of range or accuracy.  See my above comments on people who favor bans on assault rifles not knowing what they are.

Second, 'scary gun syndrome' is no different that 'scary book syndrome'.  You know, banning certain books that just attract the wrong kind of person...  Yep, same-same.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 29, 2011)

Normally I would be all for a ban, but I help make assault rifles; so, buy up.


----------



## granfire (Oct 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Joe Smoe has a legal right under the 2nd Amendment.  Your objection is noted and dismissed.



Oh baloney!
There are a lot of things that while generally covered have limiting factors asigned to them by laws. Like the1st amendment: if the general interest demands it your right is sharply curtailed! Like yelling fire in a crowded space.


(and those guns better be that accurate and powerful, naturally, much depends on the ammo...)


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Most people who favor bans on so-called 'assault weapons' don't know what they are.  Case in point ^^^


 Case in point ^^^^^That is my concern. Just because I favor a ban, does that make me what, ignorant? No, it makes me rational and a responsible gun owner. It is the kind of idiots who lack the respect for weapon, who think it is a toy  of some kind that they have the God given right to have to play with. Those people shouldn't have a weapon. They don't want any type of ban, and what the ban lifted that it shows their ignorance and irresponsibility. People like that don't respect or deserve a weapon.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> Oh baloney!There are a lot of things that while generally covered have limiting factors asigned to them by laws. Like the1st amendment: if the general interest demands it your right is sharply curtailed! Like yelling fire in a crowded space.(and those guns better be that accurate and powerful, naturally, much depends on the ammo...)


If I recall correctly from my military days max range on a standard AK is only like 400 yards.  Compared to a .308 which is over 900 meters and I can buy a 308 anywhere


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> Oh baloney!
> There are a lot of things that while generally covered have limiting factors asigned to them by laws. Like the1st amendment: if the general interest demands it your right is sharply curtailed! Like yelling fire in a crowded space.



No, not if the 'general interest demands it'.



> (and those guns better be that accurate and powerful, naturally, much depends on the ammo...)



Well, they're NOT, and that is regardless of the ammo, which goes to my point.  You don't know squat about so-called 'assault rifles' and yet you believe you know enough about them to ban them.  You don't even know what they are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> That is my concern. Just because I favor a ban, does that make me what, ignorant?



No, you have every right to favor a ban, just as I have every right not to favor a ban.  It doesn't make you ignorant.  Not knowing what it is you want to ban, THAT makes you ignorant.



> No, it makes me rational and a responsible gun owner. It is the kind of idiots who lack the respect for weapon, who think it is a toy  of some kind that they have the God given right to have to play with. Those people shouldn't have a weapon. They don't want any type of ban, and what the ban lifted that it shows their ignorance and irresponsibility. People like that don't respect or deserve a weapon. Case in point ^^^^^



You can apply your same argument to the right to practice religion, speak freely, and read books; there are certainly people who cannot be trusted not to do something awful in the name of religion, to foment hatred and strife, and to read the ideas of those people who practice both.  But the same Constitution which protects their right to worship Satan if they want, or to speak their minds in public debate, or to read hate literature or listen to 'hate radio' also allows people who are otherwise law-abiding to buy guns.  The fact that they can't be trusted is not a legal reason to take their guns away.  I put you in the same category as book burners; oppressors of liberty.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

More people die from being fat then AK47s so I say we ban forks


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

The people who support the ban are the ones I feel more comfortable with having then those who want the ban completely lifted like guy Bill quoted. Why because they respect and fear the weapon, and that is why they want the ban. It is the other idiots who are gung-ho and foaming at the mouth who want to drop the ban so they can get their hands on one. A fire arm isn't a toy, nor an aphrodisiac. It is designed to take life. It bothers me greatly when I come across people who see it as a toy, and an aphrodisiac, much less than  someone who wants to kill someone else with it. Never the less, those yahoos, make me very uncomfortable with attitude.  Fully automatic weapons are made to expend a high number of rounds in seconds, to kill and kill fast, to assault with little marksmanship skill. It isn't a sniper rifle where you have one shot.  That in of its self in the wrong hands can end many lives very quick in a public place, and we have seen it done. One too many times.  A disregard for the killing capacity and power of such a weapon to kill indicates great ignorance and lack of personal responsibility. 

As a long time gun owner, I am worried as there is such a great lack of respect and responsibility of those who own and will be come gun owners and their accessibility to get their hands on such a weapon.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

Your proving his point you know nothing about these weapons.  Have you ever fired a full auto rifle?  If you have then you know it takes a great deal of skill to hit anything at full auto.  Most people after first round goes off send the next 10 in the air due to the recoil.  Its much harder to shoot in full auto then in semi auto which is why the military stopped making the M16 in full auto because it was a waist of rounds


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

I keep pointing out that a vitamin enriched gruel, served at a government commissary, issued in a government sanctioned quantity is really all the food we would need.  It would end obesity, ensure everyone had enough to eat, and be a much easier way for the government to control, that is, monitor the health of the population.  We could have government scales at each food distribution point to weigh each citizen.  Why shouldn't we do this, I mean, if it saves just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

The gung ho nuts already have the weapons and are the ones shooting people already.  The sane, law abiding, responsible people are the ones who do not have the weapons, why...because they obey the law in the first place.   Law abiding citizens are not the problem in any way, shape or form.  Just last week or the week before, police officers were arrested selling weapons to criminals.  Once again, the law abiding citizens are not the problem.  I have no fear of my neighbors having assault rifles, pistols, deer rifles or even fully automatic weapons.  I do fear street gangs, drug cartels and lone nut jobs, but here is the thing, they already have those weapons because they acquire them ILLEGALLY.


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

And here we have, I am responsible, it is just everyone else who needs to be controlled controlled attitude.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, you have every right to favor a ban, just as I have every right not to favor a ban.  It doesn't make you ignorant.  Not knowing what it is you want to ban, THAT makes you ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> You can apply your same argument to the right to practice religion, speak freely, and read books; there are certainly people who cannot be trusted not to do something awful in the name of religion, to foment hatred and strife, and to read the ideas of those people who practice both.  But the same Constitution which protects their right to worship Satan if they want, or to speak their minds in public debate, or to read hate literature or listen to 'hate radio' also allows people who are otherwise law-abiding to buy guns.  The fact that they can't be trusted is not a legal reason to take their guns away.  I put you in the same category as book burners; oppressors of liberty.



I am not making an argument. I want to keep guns out of the hands of idiots and those who will abuse them as much as possible. It is really sophomoric to say because am an oppressor of liberty (Anti-American) I want to keep a class of gun that is extremely dangerous out of the hands of punks, criminals, idiots and anyone who abuses their right and the weapon. Based on your comments it gives me great concern and questions your level of responsibility and competency to have a weapon. I hope you are not a gun owner, if you are, I care to stay miles away. And hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot or another body part.  The 2nd amendment didn't include or apply to everyone, like oh, I don't know...hmmm...slaves, Native Americans, or the town idiot.


----------



## granfire (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Your proving his point you know nothing about these weapons.  Have you ever fired a full auto rifle?  If you have then you know it takes a great deal of skill to hit anything at full auto.  Most people after first round goes off send the next 10 in the air due to the recoil.  Its much harder to shoot in full auto then in semi auto which is why the military stopped making the M16 in full auto because it was a waist of rounds



Well, there is an off switch, too. 
I have personally not had the pleasure to shoot a big rifle. But arguing that in full auto mode nobody hit's crap is a silly argument when you know good and well that the same gun can shoot well down range with great power (which makes it popular with serious shooters).

naturally, the full auto mode is most useful for shortrange carnage. Start off low enough, I suppose you do some damage by the time you shoot guns in the air.

And don't be condescending. because one has not shot a gun does not mean one does not understand the issues a specific gun poses.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The gung ho nuts already have the weapons and are the ones shooting people already.  The sane, law abiding, responsible people are the ones who do not have the weapons, why...because they obey the law in the first place.   Law abiding citizens are not the problem in any way, shape or form.  Just last week or the week before, police officers were arrested selling weapons to criminals.  Once again, the law abiding citizens are not the problem.  I have no fear of my neighbors having assault rifles, pistols, deer rifles or even fully automatic weapons.  I do fear street gangs, drug cartels and lone nut jobs, but here is the thing, they already have those weapons because they acquire them ILLEGALLY.




Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to *high powered automatic weapons* like candy?  I don't. 

*HERE IS THE THING*, you want cops facing more automatic weapons on the street. Do you want your taxes to go up because cops have to arm themselves with more expensive high powered weapons? Do you want them walking around slinging an automatic assault weapon like a worn torn third world country, when the pull you over for a ticket. Do you want to go to their funerals.  Hell I don't.  

What you and others want is unlimited unrestricted accessibility to any type of weapon there is for your own pleasure, weapons you can't even handle, and that is what concerns me. 

 B.S. many states allow for citizens to carry and own guns. I am not sure which states say, no one is allowed to own a gun?  There is allot of hyperbole in your comments you want to be taken as fact.  And you and others will viciously insult, irrationally become defensive, pandering propaganda to the hilt waving the flag of the 2nd amendment to anyone and everyone who ever so slightly disagrees with you. That is what concerns me the greatest that a weapon is held in your hand.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

I wasn't saying you can't shoot accurately with an automatic weapon.  I was responding to his comment that its takes no skill and is easier to use a full auto and that's false.  Its much easier to shoot one round at a time.  I can shoot full auto pretty well but I also practice.  But according to you guys because I own an AK and 2 AR15s im a wack job freak nut.  I can tell you if someone wanted to cause mass death and injuries these guns would not be the best choice.  The truth is the reason why so many crimianl and thugs use thses weapons is because of the status that the anti gun people gave these guns.  So now it makes you that much more of a bad *** if you have one.  The other reason is because there are 100s of millions of AKs in the workd.  Banning them in the us will not stop the cartels from getting them.  The chinese make 100s of thousands of them a year and they are sold all over the world 





granfire said:


> Well, there is an off switch, too.I have personally not had the pleasure to shoot a big rifle. But arguing that in full auto mode nobody hit's crap is a silly argument when you know good and well that the same gun can shoot well down range with great power (which makes it popular with serious shooters).naturally, the full auto mode is most useful for shortrange carnage. Start off low enough, I suppose you do some damage by the time you shoot guns in the air.And don't be condescending. because one has not shot a gun does not mean one does not understand the issues a specific gun poses.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

Well here's the thing I am a cop and I've recovered a few AKs over the years and guess what NONE were legally ownedSo making them illegal wont do anything sone the people your afraid of getting them already have them and its already illegal for them to own them.  Washington dc banned handguns so by your argument it should have been the safest city on earth.  Sadly check the stats its def not safe.  So gun laws don't stop gun crimes.





JohnEdward said:


> Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to *high powered automatic weapons* like candy?  I don't. *HERE IS THE THING*, you want cops facing more automatic weapons on the street. Do you want your taxes to go up because cops have to arm themselves with more expensive high powered weapons? Do you want them walking around slinging an automatic assault weapon like a worn torn third world country, when the pull you over for a ticket. Do you want to go to their funerals.  Hell I don't.  What you and others want is unlimited unrestricted accessibility to any type of weapon there is for your own pleasure, weapons you can't even handle, and that is what concerns me.  B.S. many states allow for citizens to carry and own guns. I am not sure which states say, no one is allowed to own a gun?  There is allot of hyperbole in your comments you want to be taken as fact.  And you and others will viciously insult, irrationally become defensive, pandering propaganda to the hilt waving the flag of the 2nd amendment to anyone and everyone who ever so slightly disagrees with you. That is what concerns me the greatest that a weapon is held in your hand.


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

For personal protection.  I am not much of a recreational shooter.  I wouldn't own an AK or an AR because maintaining them would be something I don't feel like doing.  I wouldn't have a problem with my neighbors owning them though.  I had a shotgun but sold it because I didn't really shoot it enough.  There is just a difference in the I'm able to be responsible, but the other guy isn't that permeates so much of the political climate.  Ban light bulbs, toilets, fast food, force people to wear helmets, ban certain weapons.  It is the inner control freak rearing it's head.


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

You know, the assault weapon ban ended quite a while ago, soooo...where are all the maniacs with Ak 47's and other assault rifles killing police officers and tearing up neighborhoods.  It ended in 2004 and apparently the only ones who are killing police, according to the "Fast and Furious" scandal are drug cartels given weapons by our government.  perhaps we should ban the federal government from owning assault weapons.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I wasn't saying you can't shoot accurately with an automatic weapon.  I was responding to his comment that its takes no skill and is easier to use a full auto and that's false.  Its much easier to shoot one round at a time.  I can shoot full auto pretty well but I also practice.  But according to you guys because I own an AK and 2 AR15s im a wack job freak nut.  I can tell you if someone wanted to cause mass death and injuries these guns would not be the best choice.  The truth is the reason why so many crimianl and thugs use thses weapons is because of the status that the anti gun people gave these guns.  So now it makes you that much more of a bad *** if you have one.  The other reason is because there are 100s of millions of AKs in the workd.  Banning them in the us will not stop the cartels from getting them.  The chinese make 100s of thousands of them a year and they are sold all over the world




If you read me correctly and it is clear you didn't, so let me explain. If you own a AK pattern weapon you don't need marksmanship training to kill one to a room full of people. If you are military you know that is take great marksman skill use a sniper rifle. Because if that wasn't true, we wouldn't have a ground military. It would take more than the allotted time in boot camp to teach Billy from Tacoma to learn to shoot. Snipers are chosen, they are picked. Those soldiers given an assault weapon are not.  Also, put a AK patterned rifle in the hands of a 12-15 year old and say pull the trigger and see how marksmanship training he needs to clear a room. Don't believe me, ask any terrorist group or their world nation at war who arm boys with assault rifles.  More closer to home ask a gang members how easy it is to point and pull the trigger or any nut job that shoot up a public place. If he doesn't know take him to the range and let him shoot. It doesn't take a very much marksmanship, and can be learned in seconds.  Now on the other hand, a sniper rifle isn't so easy, and requires extenisve training and skill that is why you probably don't see them flooding the street or weapon of choice among the bad guys.


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

Also from the article:



> AK-pattern rifles and pistols, and AR-pattern rifles are some of the most common semi-auto firearms in America. Interest in these weapons skyrocketed due to the drama anti-gun organizations drummed up when they coined the phrase &#8220;assault weapon,&#8221; attaching it to these and similar firearms in order to craft the 1994 AW ban. The side effect was to make these firearms far more desirable. Today, entire shooting sports have been developed around the AR in particular.



If these are already the most common types of semi-auto firearms, NOW, where is all the mass death that people posting here are saying is going to happen.  It hasn't happened in ten years, and according to the article, whole shooting sports revolve around these weapons.  Where is this covered by the theory that easier access will lead to more killing, massive killing sprees and out gunned police officers.  Is ten years enough time to get a good sample of criminal behavior or will it all of a sudden kick in after 11 years?  Just asking.

Actually 2011 minus 2004 would be 7 years, so maybe 8 years is the magic timetable for mass killing sprees.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> For personal protection.  I am not much of a recreational shooter.  I wouldn't own an AK or an AR because maintaining them would be something I don't feel like doing.  I wouldn't have a problem with my neighbors owning them though.  I had a shotgun but sold it because I didn't really shoot it enough.  There is just a difference in the I'm able to be responsible, but the other guy isn't that permeates so much of the political climate.  Ban light bulbs, toilets, fast food, force people to wear helmets, ban certain weapons.  It is the inner control freak rearing it's head.




Then what is your point. You don't have a dog in this fight. Hell, you ever consider banning stupidity?  There is allot of it going around.


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

Marksmanship is nice but we were trained for suppressive fire to limit the ability of the enemy to maneuver and to allow us to move freely around the battlefield.  Once again, single fire was what they were training us to do, not fully automatic.  It burns up way too much ammo and, as has been stated, it isn't accurate.  

2004---where are the killing sprees with AK's and Ar-15's?


----------



## billc (Oct 29, 2011)

If you ban one, for some reason it leads to banning more and more, also, it is a right, not a privleldge to own firearms.  I also don't have to practice a right to try to preserve it for everyone.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You know, the assault weapon ban ended quite a while ago, soooo...where are all the maniacs with Ak 47's and other assault rifles killing police officers and tearing up neighborhoods.  It ended in 2004 and apparently the only ones who are killing police, according to the "Fast and Furious" scandal are drug cartels given weapons by our government.  perhaps we should ban the federal government from owning assault weapons.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm



You're not forming a circle jerk here are you in terms of an argument ploy? I have no interest in that. I am discussing those in support and not in support of the ban. The moron who wrote the propaganda of an article. It is clear he isn't writing if the ban should be or shouldn't be lifted per your above comment pointing out.  You didn't intend to discuss the topic of your op via the article to be about ban being being place or not now. You intended a discussion around the idea of a ban, the ban being an example, i.e. results future restrictions that may or may not be placed etc.  As well as turning public opinion in favor of unrestricted accesses and ownership of AK patterned weapons.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> If you read me correctly and it is clear you didn't, so let me explain. If you own a AK pattern weapon you don't need marksmanship training to kill one to a room full of people. If you are military you know that is take great marksman skill use a sniper rifle. Because if that wasn't true, we wouldn't have a ground military. It would take more than the allotted time in boot camp to teach Billy from Tacoma to learn to shoot. Snipers are chosen, they are picked. Those soldiers given an assault weapon are not.  Also, put a AK patterned rifle in the hands of a 12-15 year old and say pull the trigger and see how marksmanship training he needs to clear a room. Don't believe me, ask any terrorist group or their world nation at war who arm boys with assault rifles.  More closer to home ask a gang members how easy it is to point and pull the trigger or any nut job that shoot up a public place. If he doesn't know take him to the range and let him shoot. It doesn't take a very much marksmanship, and can be learned in seconds.  Now on the other hand, a sniper rifle isn't so easy, and requires extenisve training and skill that is why you probably don't see them flooding the street or weapon of choice among the bad guys.



There is no diff between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle and my 9 year old daughter can drop a deer with no problems.  Also the USMC spends a month of boot camp working on marksmanship for Billy from Tacoma.  Im not saying you cant kill anyone with an AK Im saying they are no more deadly then any other gun you can by from Bass Pro Shops, and in my opinion as a 4 year USMC vet and 10+ as a police officer, having shot everything from a 22 pistol up to a Mark 19 grenade launcher if someone wanted to cause max damage and hurt the most people you cant do any better then a 12 gauge and a glock pistol.

Your still avoiding the fact that these weapons are already on the street ILLEGALLY so banning them from the person that wants one for home defense wont save any cops, since the bad guys not going to turn his in because the Govt decides to ban them.
More people are killed by handguns the the evil AK-47 should we ban them too?


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

The problem with your argument is "assault weapons" are not they guns that most criminals are using.  In fact accorging to the ATF heres the top 10:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html#ixzz1cE7UubBU

So seems to me you should be against small cal. handguns like .38 and .380 and leave the big guns alone.  Yet you believe all the Hype of the anti-gun crowd and refuse to see the facts


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to *high powered automatic weapons* like candy?  I don't.



You don't know what you're talking about.  An 'automatic weapon' is a fully-automatic weapon, capable of firing more than one round of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger.  Such weapons can only be purchased under extremely limited circumstances in the USA.  They cannot be purchased in a gun store by a buyer off the street.  Period.

Here's how a citizen can get a fully-automatic weapon:

http://www.internationalpolicesupply.net/ownmg.htm

The license to even purchase one costs $200, the local chief of police has to sign off on it, you have to have your mugshot and fingerprints taken, and the weapons themselves cost in the thousands of dollars.

A semi-automatic weapon, which is the sort that we're talking about, are legal for citizens to purchase.  They *LOOK* like fully-automatic weapons, but they can only fire one bullet with each pull of the trigger.  This is NO DIFFERENT than a hunting rifle.  Same caliber, same rifle barrel length, etc.  The major difference is that a so-called 'assault rifle' has a detachable magazine capable of holding more bullets than the typical hunting rifle.  That's it, from a functional basis.

If you are ignorant about weapons, you're more dangerous than the typical moron with a gun; because you want something banned and you don't even know what it is you want banned.  Freaky dangerous.



> *HERE IS THE THING*, you want cops facing more automatic weapons on the street. Do you want your taxes to go up because cops have to arm themselves with more expensive high powered weapons? Do you want them walking around slinging an automatic assault weapon like a worn torn third world country, when the pull you over for a ticket. Do you want to go to their funerals.  Hell I don't.



Semi-automatic weapons are legal.  Have been for a long time.  Blood is not running in the streets.  Your fear-mongering is ridiculous.



> What you and others want is unlimited unrestricted accessibility to any type of weapon there is for your own pleasure, weapons you can't even handle, and that is what concerns me.



Nope.  First, that's not what I want, and second, I'm a Marine Corps veteran and former law enforcement.  I think I know which end the bullets come out of.



> B.S. many states allow for citizens to carry and own guns. I am not sure which states say, no one is allowed to own a gun?  There is allot of hyperbole in your comments you want to be taken as fact.  And you and others will viciously insult, irrationally become defensive, pandering propaganda to the hilt waving the flag of the 2nd amendment to anyone and everyone who ever so slightly disagrees with you. That is what concerns me the greatest that a weapon is held in your hand.



So be concerned.  Too bad for you.  The 2nd Amendment is as powerful as the 1st Amendment.  Both matter a lot, and neither one is going away.  So get over yourself.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If you ban one, for some reason it leads to banning more and more, also, it is a right, not a privleldge to own firearms.  I also don't have to practice a right to try to preserve it for everyone.



Right the ban on drunk drivers and those under 16 from driving has lead to bans on owning a vehicle driving a vehicle, even making vehicles.  The ban on prostitution has lead to a ban on sex and procreation. Do I need to go on? 

No, there is a responsibility to own a firearm, that goes with the right.  When people don't understand that and say "it is right, not a privilege" they should be banned from owning a firearm. It is obvious they shun the responsibility and respect for the weapon and that is the issue. I am a firm believer before that right is granted you have to demonstrate you are worthy of that right, and adhere to and understand the responsible of that right. Otherwise you lose that right. 

That is the issue isn't, that guys like you ignore, that a right has a responsibility and if abused, or incapable of handling that right, it can be lost or deigned.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> . I am a firm believer before that right is granted you have to demonstrate you are worthy of that right, and adhere to and understand the responsible of that right. Otherwise you lose that right.
> 
> .


Hmmm never saw that part in the Constitution.  Kinda glad too Id hate to leave my rights up the govt discretion.  Since once they have the power to take away my 2nd amendment the rest no longer matter.

So how would one prove they have the right to own a gun?  And who do you trust to make that choice?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.  An 'automatic weapon' is a fully-automatic weapon, capable of firing more than one round of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger.  Such weapons can only be purchased under extremely limited circumstances in the USA.  They cannot be purchased in a gun store by a buyer off the street.  Period.
> 
> Here's how a citizen can get a fully-automatic weapon:
> 
> ...



Don't read into what isn't there. I am not advocating the removal or rejecting the 2nd Amendment. By saying what you said makes me wonder if you really have any ground to stand on and making a desperate attempt at a last stand. Hey if you advocate criminals or mentally unstable, or anti-social or American groups having a gun, I can't support that. I can't support or find any rational behind owning a automatic high powered weapon just because you can, just because it fills some kind of fantasy. An automatic weapon like AK patterned weapons are not something people depend on like a car to get to work, if there was that need I would see the rational of some people owning one.  Again this isn't about the 2nd Amendment this is about irresponsible people having unrestricted access to such weapons. Oh and by the way, do you own a tank, and do you drive one?  If you do you couldn't drive it. And why would you want one?  It is covered by the 2nd Amendment.  But, I don't see you or others advocating that, or arguing it?  Who really needs to get over themselves, who really needs to get a perspective...Bill.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Don't read into what isn't there. I am not advocating the removal or rejecting the 2nd Amendment. By saying what you said makes me wonder if you really have any ground to stand on and making a desperate attempt at a last stand. Hey if you advocate criminals or mentally unstable, or anti-social or American groups having a gun, I can't support that. I can't support or find any rational behind owning a automatic high powered weapon just because you can, just because it fills some kind of fantasy. An automatic weapon like AK patterned weapons are not something people depend on like a car to get to work, if there was that need I would see the rational of some people owning one.  Again this isn't about the 2nd Amendment this is about irresponsible people having unrestricted access to such weapons. Oh and by the way, do you own a tank, and do you drive one?  If you do you couldn't drive it. And why would you want one?  It is covered by the 2nd Amendment.  But, I don't see you or others advocating that, or arguing it?  Who really needs to get over themselves, who really needs to get a perspective...Bill.



You don't know what the guns are that you want to ban, but you want to ban them.  You think fully-automatic weapons are available over the counter, you think that those of us who do not want semi-automatic so-called 'assault weapons' banned want no regulation at all, and you don't even know what the current gun laws in the US happen to be.

You're uniformed, ignorant, and apparently planning to stay that way intentionally.  You are in no way qualified to say who should or should not be 'allowed' to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  That's a fail.  Come back when you get your learn on.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Don't read into what isn't there. I am not advocating the removal or rejecting the 2nd Amendment. By saying what you said makes me wonder if you really have any ground to stand on and making a desperate attempt at a last stand. Hey if you advocate criminals or mentally unstable, or anti-social or American groups having a gun, I can't support that. I can't support or find any rational behind owning a automatic high powered weapon just because you can, just because it fills some kind of fantasy. An automatic weapon like AK patterned weapons are not something people depend on like a car to get to work, if there was that need I would see the rational of some people owning one.  Again this isn't about the 2nd Amendment this is about irresponsible people having unrestricted access to such weapons. Oh and by the way, do you own a tank, and do you drive one?  If you do you couldn't drive it. And why would you want one?  It is covered by the 2nd Amendment.  But, I don't see you or others advocating that, or arguing it?  Who really needs to get over themselves, who really needs to get a perspective...Bill.



So its the "POWER" of the gun you dont like?  You cant give any other argument but the "POWER"  Well a 30-06 and .308 are more POWERFUL then an AR-15 or AK.  Hell if its the POWER your upset about I can buy a 50 Cal sniper rifle if I want why not ban them too? http://www.50bmgstore.com/50bmgcurrentprices.htm


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Hmmm never saw that part in the Constitution.  Kinda glad too Id hate to leave my rights up the govt discretion.  Since once they have the power to take away my 2nd amendment the rest no longer matter.
> 
> So how would one prove they have the right to own a gun?  And who do you trust to make that choice?



Jeezs do we really have to? You commit a crime and your rights are taken away for godsake. You live in a society, rights are granted by the freakin Govt. All the rights drawn up and implemented by the framers and founders where not a group of housewives making up parlor games. What are and why where our _governing_ documents, like the Bill of Rights considered, leisure reading of a book club? No they were created and implemented by government that makes the rules for people, and if you don't follow those rules they take them away from you.  Should the current government suspend the 2nd Amendment? No they shouldn't screw with it, and in any way lessen it's impact on this nation.   But, that doesn't mean an individual can't lose that right. I have never said, that we as a nation shouldn't support the second amendment. That was a poor last ditch effort by individual who support the idea, _anyone and everyone_ should have unrestricted access to AK patterned weapons. Just because they want one to fill some kind of gun fantasy,  who don't have realistic perspective on weapons. Who said that to discredit me because I don't think they should own a AK patterned weapon, or any gun now for that matter.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So its the "POWER" of the gun you dont like?  You cant give any other argument but the "POWER"  Well a 30-06 and .308 are more POWERFUL then an AR-15 or AK.  Hell if its the POWER your upset about I can buy a 50 Cal sniper rifle if I want why not ban them too? http://www.50bmgstore.com/50bmgcurrentprices.htm



I presented my argument to the point of ad nauseum. You just didn't see it, you didn't read it? Go back and re-read pls.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Jeezs do we really have to? You commit a crime and your rights are taken away for godsake. You live in a society, rights are granted by the freakin Govt. All the rights drawn up and implemented by the framers and founders where not a group of housewives making up parlor games. What are and why where our _governing_ documents, like the Bill of Rights considered, leisure reading of a book club? No they were created and implemented by government that makes the rules for people, and if you don't follow those rules they take them away from you.  Should the current government suspend the 2nd Amendment? No they shouldn't screw with it, and in any way lessen it's impact on this nation.   But, that doesn't mean an individual can't lose that right. I have never said, that we as a nation shouldn't support the second amendment. That was a poor last ditch effort by individual who support the idea, _anyone and everyone_ should have unrestricted access to AK patterned weapons. Just because they want one to fill some kind of gun fantasy,  who don't have realistic perspective on weapons. Who said that to discredit me because I don't think they should own a AK patterned weapon, or any gun now for that matter.



No one has said unrestricted access to these or any guns.  If you commit a crime then your cant own a gun anymore so its already ilegal for them to have an AK,  If your nuts your not allowed to own a gun its already a crime.  We already do back ground checks and have age restrictions on guns. 
  So all you want to do now is remove the rights of someone who has not done anything wrong.  Im a police officer and Military vet why cant I own an AK if I want?   What did I do that causes you to decide I shouldnt own that gun.


And AGAIN your dodging the question on WHY THAT gun you saw the list of guns used in crimes "Assault weapons" were not on it.  In fact according to the department of justice approx 1/5 of 1% of all violent crimes were committed with assault weapons and only 1% of all gun homicides were done with assault weapons.  And since 1992  only 4% of Mass murders were committed with assault weapons so your argument is based only on emotion and not Fact. You already admitted your afraid of guns so of course you want them banned you just have no FACTS to back it up.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I presented my argument to the point of ad nauseum. You just didn't see it, you didn't read it? Go back and re-read pls.


FACTS:

The following summary of police statistical surveys is excerpted from Kopel, David B, _Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition_. (Kopel's paper contains the citations for these surveys and lists a few more studies as well.) 

_California_. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons." 
_Chicago_. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons." 
_Florida_. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989. 
_Los Angeles_. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons." 
_Maryland_. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland. 
_Massachusetts_. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings. 
_Miami_. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons." 
_New Jersey_. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey. 
_New York City_. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms. 
_New York State_. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992. 
_San Diego_. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition. 
_San Francisco_. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics. 
_Virginia_. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons." 
_National statistics_. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

Pls. read all my posts they already answer your questions and assumptions.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> No one has said unrestricted access to these or any guns.  If you commit a crime then your cant own a gun anymore so its already ilegal for them to have an AK,  If your nuts your not allowed to own a gun its already a crime.  We already do back ground checks and have age restrictions on guns.
> So all you want to do now is remove the rights of someone who has not done anything wrong.  Im a police officer and Military vet why cant I own an AK if I want?   What did I do that causes you to decide I shouldnt own that gun.
> 
> 
> And AGAIN your dodging the question on WHY THAT gun you saw the list of guns used in crimes "Assault weapons" were not on it.  In fact according to the department of justice approx 1/5 of 1% of all violent crimes were committed with assault weapons and only 1% of all gun homicides were done with assault weapons.  And since 1992  only 4% of Mass murders were committed with assault weapons so your argument is based only on emotion and not Fact. You already admitted your afraid of guns so of course you want them banned you just have no FACTS to back it up.



Yep your right, rights can and are taken away. Agreed. They are also deigned. Pls. read all my posts they already answer your questions and assumptions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Pls. read all my posts they already answer your questions and assumptions.


I read your posts all you say is you dont want a gun nut having them.  You cant provide any FACTS for your argument only emotions.  You might as well argue for a ban on Martial Arts so psycopaths cant learn to kill more efficently same argument your making.  You imply these guns will cause mass murder and rampage killings of cops and school kids but the facts dont support that.
Prove to me banning these guns will make me safer and Ill be all for it.  Ive been a cop for most of my adult life and am all about safety.  Ive been to TOOO many officers funerals and would love to never go to one again.  I just know this ban wont make me safer and is only a stepping stone to ban all weapons.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 29, 2011)

From 1982 to 1993, of the 687 officers who were killed by firearms other than their own guns, more were killed by .38 caliber revolvers than by any other firearm. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, _Guns Used in Crime_, July 1995, p.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I read your posts all you say is you dont want a gun nut having them.  You cant provide any FACTS for your argument only emotions.



More than that but, what FACTS do I need to prove those  who are incapability of being responsible and those who demonstrate irresponsibility, i.e. look at guns as toys, and the perspective of the author of the article, and those who like him shouldn't have assault weapons? Of course, I am going to have a strong opinion against that. It is just as emotional as those who think am wrong. 




> You might as well argue for a ban on Martial Arts so psycopaths cant learn to kill more efficently same argument your making.  You imply these guns will cause mass murder and rampage killings of cops and school kids but the facts dont support that.
> Prove to me banning these guns will make me safer and Ill be all for it.  Ive been a cop for most of my adult life and am all about safety.  Ive been to TOOO many officers funerals and would love to never go to one again.  I just know this ban wont make me safer and is only a stepping stone to ban all weapons.



HUH? I said such guns are not necessary in society, in terms of the article wanting AK patterned weapons easily accessible to the public isn't a responsible idea. Just because the Mexican cartels can get them cheaper in Mexico than here isn't a rational or responsible thought, and that lack of rational and shunning of responsibility makes me uncomfortable. As well as the argument by the article for accepting these weapons into society with open arms. Just because some gun nut wants to get off shooting it, and fulfilling some kind of fantasy without ever rationally weighing the consequences and risks of their personal wants. They obviously have no regard for anyone but themselves.  I feel the ban / a ban on such weapons are a good thing, especially when measured by the reaction of those who argue in favor of the article and against the ban(banning).  

Like I said I am pro-gun, who recognizes and honors that responsibility. Who doesn't believe in selling guns as if it where candy to anyone and everyone regardless. Reminds me of the cigarette companies philosophy some years ago-reckless and irresponsible. 

You know, if the market was developed and expanded for these types of weapons money would be made hand over fist, that and the consequences the would result (even one loss of innocent life, be it a cop or a school child) is too high of a price am willing to support.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

I guess what I don't understand is why this type of gun you don't like.  You calim its because gun freaks are not trsponsible for them but the same gun freak can already buy these guns.   These guns are already for sale I can go into my local gun store and buy an AR or AK.  There hasn't been an increase in gun violence with these weapons.  Also even if banned the gun nuts will still own as many guns as they can afford so you still have gun nuts treating guns like toys.  The facts prove these guns are not the cop killers and mass murder tools your worried about.  If you were to say you were for a hand gun ban because more crime are committed with them then any other gun I could at least understand your point.  I would still disagree but at least your argument would make sence.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess what I don't understand is why this type of gun you don't like. You calim its because gun freaks are not trsponsible for them but the same gun freak can already buy these guns. These guns are already for sale I can go into my local gun store and buy an AR or AK. There hasn't been an increase in gun violence with these weapons. Also even if banned the gun nuts will still own as many guns as they can afford so you still have gun nuts treating guns like toys. The facts prove these guns are not the cop killers and mass murder tools your worried about. If you were to say you were for a hand gun ban because more crime are committed with them then any other gun I could at least understand your point. I would still disagree but at least your argument would make sence.



I think he means the housewives' favourite.








You lot get very prickly about your guns don't you, it's worst than criticising your children! :uhyeah:


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You lot get very prickly about your guns don't you, it's worst than criticising your children! :uhyeah:


Nope just prickly about our constitution that's all


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope just prickly about our constitution that's all



It just seems that a lot of 'you're stupid' etc gets thrown around. Makes it difficult for non Americans to follow the discussion which is an interesting one as the Americans 'love affair' with weapons needs explaining to the rest of us!


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It just seems that a lot of 'you're stupid' etc gets thrown around. Makes it difficult for non Americans to follow the discussion which is an interesting one as the Americans 'love affair' with weapons needs explaining to the rest of us!



I didnt call him stupid.

We dont need to explain anything to the rest of anyone.  If your not an American your opinon of our laws and Constitution really dont matter. Im not trying to be rude it does come across that way but I dont know a better way of saying it.   Just like Im sure you guys could careless about what we think of your laws.

However its not the love affair has nothing to do with the argument.  Its clearly spelled out in our Constitution we have the right to own guns.  There are groups in this counrty that want to take that right away.  They know they could never at this time pass a law banning guns in general the people wouldnt stand for it.  So the plan is to make different classifications of guns give them scary names like "Assault Weapons".  Start a negative public relations campain on this type of gun saying how dangerous "Assault Weapons" are to the public.  Knowing its a total lie and the facts do support the claims. They also know Americans are busy living and wont take the time to check the facts.  Then you get the "Im Pro Gun" but these types of guns are so bad we need to ban them for YOUR own safety. Once that type of gun gets banned then they can do 2 things first they begin to add guns to the list.  California banned assault weapons, then went on to classify some bolt action rifles as "assault weapons" and the next thing they do is move on to another type of gun and work on them to ban them next.  Eventually the 2nd amendment is gone.  Once that happens we have no way to defend ourselves from the govt for the next set of rights they decide we are not responsible enough to have.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I didnt call him stupid.
> 
> We dont need to explain anything to the rest of anyone. If your not an American your opinon of our laws and Constitution really dont matter. Im not trying to be rude it does come across that way but I dont know a better way of saying it. Just like Im sure you guys could careless about what we think of your laws.
> 
> However its not the love affair has nothing to do with the argument. Its clearly spelled out in our Constitution we have the right to own guns. There are groups in this counrty that want to take that right away. They know they could never at this time pass a law banning guns in general the people wouldnt stand for it. So the plan is to make different classifications of guns give them scary names like "Assault Weapons". Start a negative public relations campain on this type of gun saying how dangerous "Assault Weapons" are to the public. Knowing its a total lie and the facts do support the claims. They also know Americans are busy living and wont take the time to check the facts. Then you get the "Im Pro Gun" but these types of guns are so bad we need to ban them for YOUR own safety. Once that type of gun gets banned then they can do 2 things first they begin to add guns to the list. California banned assault weapons, then went on to classify some bolt action rifles as "assault weapons" and the next thing they do is move on to another type of gun and work on them to ban them next. Eventually the 2nd amendment is gone. Once that happens we have no way to defend ourselves from the govt for the next set of rights they decide we are not responsible enough to have.



Yes it does come across as very rude. It comes across as superior, condescending and obnoxious actually. We don't have opinions on your constitution or your laws, we are just interested in people, pardon us for being interested in about how our American cousins think about things...Learning about how others do and think about things leads to tolerance and a better understanding between nations.. . .  in most cases at any rate, at least among those with open minds. I don't know much about the arguments about guns nor your constitution, I was looking to be educated on both not to be jumped on rudely for being interested.

I didn't say you called anyone stupid I said there was a lot of calling stupid around.

Still go back to your isolationism, the rest of us will carry on trying to learn something, of course if your constitution is too precious for us to learn anything from, we'll go and sit in the corner.


----------



## Steve (Oct 30, 2011)

This won't be a surprise to anyone, but I think we should open things up and lift any bans on pretty much anything this side of high explosives.  At the same time, I think we should... here it comes...  regulate the entire situation.  Just as you need to pass both a practical and written test in order to drive a car, and need endorsements to drive motor cycles, CDLs for semis and the really big stuff, you should be made to pass similar competence tests for weapons, and be made to renew/retest regularly.If you want to purchase a handgun, go through a basic handgun safety course, take a written test, pass a practical exam on a range, and then pay for your license.  Once you have the basic license, you will need to get specific endorsements for each broad category: shotguns, rifles, whatever makes the most sense.  And then you'd be required to renew your license every 3 years or so.  It can't be that hard.I've said in the past that I also believe that gun owners should be required to purchase liability insurance, and still believe 100% that this is a good idea.I understand that there are pros and cons to my plan.  I also understand that there's a snowball's chance in hell it'll ever be implemented.  But it's always seemed like a good idea to me.  It's a system that works for cars and motorcycles, as well as commercially driven heavy machinery.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Yes it does come across as very rude. It comes across as superior, condescending and obnoxious actually. We don't have opinions on your constitution or your laws, we are just interested in people, pardon us for being interested in about how our American cousins think about things...Learning about how others do and think about things leads to tolerance and a better understanding between nations.. . .  in most cases at any rate, at least among those with open minds. I don't know much about the arguments about guns nor your constitution, I was looking to be educated on both not to be jumped on rudely for being interested.I didn't say you called anyone stupid I said there was a lot of calling stupid around.Still go back to your isolationism, the rest of us will carry on trying to learn something, of course if your constitution is too precious for us to learn anything from, we'll go and sit in the corner.


I love the irony of you jumping into a conversation and critiquing two heavily opposed parties on their manners and methods. Reminds me of when I jumped in between you and billcihak. But I digress.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Yes it does come across as very rude. It comes across as superior, condescending and obnoxious actually. We don't have opinions on your constitution or your laws, we are just interested in people, pardon us for being interested in about how our American cousins think about things...Learning about how others do and think about things leads to tolerance and a better understanding between nations.. . .  in most cases at any rate, at least among those with open minds. I don't know much about the arguments about guns nor your constitution, I was looking to be educated on both not to be jumped on rudely for being interested.
> 
> I didn't say you called anyone stupid I said there was a lot of calling stupid around.
> 
> Still go back to your isolationism, the rest of us will carry on trying to learn something, of course if your constitution is too precious for us to learn anything from, we'll go and sit in the corner.



So if you want to learn READ THE POSTS there are 4 pages of them on the topic.  Nobody is hiding them from you.  It has nothing to do with Isolationism it has to do with other countries that like to lecture us on how we should run our country and quite frankly its none of their concern since our constitution does not apply to them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

Steve said:


> This won't be a surprise to anyone, but I think we should open things up and lift any bans on pretty much anything this side of high explosives.  At the same time, I think we should... here it comes...  regulate the entire situation.  Just as you need to pass both a practical and written test in order to drive a car, and need endorsements to drive motor cycles, CDLs for semis and the really big stuff, you should be made to pass similar competence tests for weapons, and be made to renew/retest regularly.If you want to purchase a handgun, go through a basic handgun safety course, take a written test, pass a practical exam on a range, and then pay for your license.  Once you have the basic license, you will need to get specific endorsements for each broad category: shotguns, rifles, whatever makes the most sense.  And then you'd be required to renew your license every 3 years or so.  It can't be that hard.I've said in the past that I also believe that gun owners should be required to purchase liability insurance, and still believe 100% that this is a good idea.I understand that there are pros and cons to my plan.  I also understand that there's a snowball's chance in hell it'll ever be implemented.  But it's always seemed like a good idea to me.  It's a system that works for cars and motorcycles, as well as commercially driven heavy machinery.


The only problem I see with it is Govt can use licensing fees as a form of gun control.  They could easily say well people dont need this type of gun or that type so to get the "endorsement" we will make the fee so high nobody could afford it.  Im not opposed to requiring training but again it comes down to only the Law abiding people will take the classes.  The thug thats going to rob the gas station or do the drive by isnt going to take the classes and if he did it wont stop his behavior so it only the lawful people will be effected.  Most of the people that are commiting crimes are not supposed to have guns in the first place they are already illegal and banned from them.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So if you want to learn READ THE POSTS there are 4 pages of them on the topic. Nobody is hiding them from you. It has nothing to do with Isolationism it has to do with other countries that like to lecture us on how we should run our country and quite frankly its none of their concern since our constitution does not apply to them.



Actually I did read them, that's why I said what I did. who's lecturing you on your constitution, Not I that's for sure. I was just commenting on your passion about the subject so calm down before your blood pressure rises.

Josh, I wasn't criticising anyone, dear lord you lot are really defensive aren't you? Jumping in assuming someone is saying something they aren't. I post a picture and a tongue in cheek comment ( why *do* you think women have some very big handbags/purses?) and you assume I'm criticising the whole country, it's laws, the constitution and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Really, why are you so defensive?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

I feel my own words may be inadequate to fully express my opinion on this subject, and so I will quote those who have put it much better than I have.1) ALEXANDER HAMILTON: " _f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.2) NOAH WEBSTER: " Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." 3)JOSEPH STORY: " endment was clear:The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."_


----------



## Steve (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> The only problem I see with it is Govt can use licensing fees as a form of gun control.  They could easily say well people dont need this type of gun or that type so to get the "endorsement" we will make the fee so high nobody could afford it.  Im not opposed to requiring training but again it comes down to only the Law abiding people will take the classes.  The thug thats going to rob the gas station or do the drive by isnt going to take the classes and if he did it wont stop his behavior so it only the lawful people will be effected.  Most of the people that are commiting crimes are not supposed to have guns in the first place they are already illegal and banned from them.


Just to be very clear, I don't think that this will address crime one way or the other.  People pay to register their cars every year.  They pay their State for their licenses every 3 to 5 years.  They pay for liability insurance.  This addresses many issues, but criminals still use cars to commit crimes.  They still steal cars and cars are still driven by people who don't have licenses.  

In other words, I think that licensing, registering and requiring insurance will do a lot of good, but conflating responsible gun ownership and regulation with crime is specious.  Two different issues and addressing one in no way addresses the other.

Now, regarding the tez/ballen thing, why don't you guys just stop picking at each other?  Why can't we be friends?  Why can't we be friends?  Why can't we be friends?


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Actually, I was just updating the Fast and Furious case and pointing out that there is more evidence that the administration was trying to kick start their anti-gun agenda with the gun walker strategy.  However, I am always interested to see where posts lead, and I really do not care where posters take them once I start them.  This so far is a great discussion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez and I are friends we even send each other chritmas cards lol.


----------



## Steve (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Tez and I are friends we even send each other chritmas cards lol.


I may be wrong, but I think Tez is Jewish. 

Not trying to make light of the discussion, but I think we could stand to lighten up the tone a little.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

Ballen 0351 you asked what I have against such weapons.



billcihak said:


> There may be more to the claim that the "Fast and Furious" disaster was actually aimed at private ownership of firearms in the states.  The following article details the type of guns that were allowed to walk versus the type of gun the cartels actually prefer.   The price point on the weapons details that buying guns in the U.S. is more expensive for the cartels than getting them on the black market.  The article...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/smoking-gun...ets-of-ban-efforts-but-not-wanted-by-cartels/



 It is not the weapon specifically, it is as I said, about perspective and societal acceptance of such weapons. Am against the idea of equating such weapons to being toys, recreational object for fun, to the change in culture that support irresponsibility and respect for all weapons. The idea such weapons be available when needed, which I clearly stated in a earlier post and supports the 2nd Amendment.  Yet, I get it thrown in my face and labeled as being against it. *I am about reasonable, rational, responsible and respectful gun ownership.  Am against the idea that people should have and get what ever they want without honoring or considering others or the consequences and impacts of their fancy desires. *


*In L.A. some years ago a bank was robbed, two men with automatic weapons and body armor out gunned the police terrorize the public. It was ugly. After that it changed the L.A. police dept.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Sorry, the firearms are not the same as cars.  Fire arms/weapons and their ownership are one of the building blocks of a free people.  Cars can't claim the same thing.  Although I know the licensing and registration process sounds like a reasonable measure, we as a people need to guard against an unreasonable government.  Right now many states make the process of acquiring a permit to own and/or carry a firearm so complicated a lot of honest citizens can't afford to go through the process.  A lot of times you actually need to get a lawyer to escort your claim to own or carry a weapon.  Training requirements might make sense, but again, they are an avenue to keeping citizens from owning and carrying a weapon.  There may be a way to get training done, but not as an obstacle to ownership and carrying.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Hmmm...I remember that shoot out. First, it is against the law to rob a bank.  Owning a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon in most cases (without proper permits, which I would guess these guys didn't have) is illegal, especially in the commission of multiple felonies.  Then of course it is illegal to shoot at people, police, and small animals (at least out of season).  Attempted murder, which is what these guys did, is also illegal.  I'm not sure the two guys were citizens, not that  I'm trying to start the whole ILLEGAL alien thing.  Murder is also illegal, assault and battery is also illegal, which their very actions were.  Sooo...at what point would prohibiting people from having SEMI-AUTOMATIC AK's and AR's, and I am not sure those were the weapons they used anyway, have kept these guys from BREAKING THE LAW BY OWNING SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons.


By the way, the police went to a privately owned gun store, piled guns into their squads, freely given by the owner of the store in an act of civic responsiblity,  and then went back and engaged the shooters.  In your world, the gun store would not have had the weapons the police needed to bring down the two bank robbers, who were covered in body armor.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Why would she be upset by a christmas card?


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

The shootout from L.A...

http://videosift.com/video/the-1997-bank-of-america-north-hollywood-shootout


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Also on the robbery at wikipedia:

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

And the money quote:



> SWAT eventually arrived with weapons that could penetrate and several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer.





> Phillips imported steel-core ammunition for his illegally modified assault rifles, and acquired Aramid body armor.[SUP][5][/SUP]





> [h=2]Shootout[/h]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...I remember that shoot out. First, it is against the law to rob a bank.  Owning a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon in most cases (without proper permits, which I would guess these guys didn't have) is illegal, especially in the commission of multiple felonies.  Then of course it is illegal to shoot at people, police, and small animals (at least out of season).  Attempted murder, which is what these guys did, is also illegal.  I'm not sure the two guys were citizens, not that  I'm trying to start the whole ILLEGAL alien thing.  Murder is also illegal, assault and battery is also illegal, which their very actions were.  Sooo...at what point would prohibiting people from having SEMI-AUTOMATIC AK's and AR's, and I am not sure those were the weapons they used anyway, have kept these guys from BREAKING THE LAW BY OWNING SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons.
> 
> 
> By the way, the police went to a privately owned gun store, piled guns into their squads, freely given by the owner of the store in an act of civic responsiblity,  and then went back and engaged the shooters.  In your world, the gun store would not have had the weapons the police needed to bring down the two bank robbers, who were covered in body armor.



*What is it with you guys, you don't read? What did I just say and said before, I will say it again for the sake of my own prosperity of literacy. "The idea such weapons be available when needed, which I clearly stated in a earlier post and supports the 2nd Amendment."  That was my friggin' point about the L.A. cops. They didn't have the fire power resources to match, and as a result they now have it. Those robbers where terrorist by definition. Let me leave you with the immortal words of Carlos Mencia "DEE DEE DEEEEEE!"*


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I did read them, that's why I said what I did. who's lecturing you on your constitution, Not I that's for sure. I was just commenting on your passion about the subject so calm down before your blood pressure rises.Josh, I wasn't criticising anyone, dear lord you lot are really defensive aren't you? Jumping in assuming someone is saying something they aren't. I post a picture and a tongue in cheek comment ( why *do* you think women have some very big handbags/purses?) and you assume I'm criticising the whole country, it's laws, the constitution and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Really, why are you so defensive?


LOL! I didn't even respond to the post with the picture. I even quoted the post I responded to. And I didn't accuse you of criticism. I accused you of a critique. There actually is a difference in English as to how these words are employed. Also, you misunderstand the word defensive. But I digress. You did, in fact critique ballen0351. Notice I said critique, not criticise. BUT SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, commenting on your perception of America having a love affair with guns IS DEFINITIVELY the employment of social criticism. Now, before you go on the defense about my critiques of your ironic hypocrisy and negligence of the difference between similar words, I exhort you VEHEMENTLY to clarify your your understanding of the lexical definition of said words, prior to the at this point redundant insertion of tarsus in esophagus.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Dr. Sheldon Cooper...is that you?


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Hmmm...



> M&#259;t&#259;s&#259;reanu and Phillips obtained ammunition and weapons through illegal methods. These methods consist of black-market: AR-15 converted to fire automatically, a semiautomatic HK-91, two Chinese Ak-47s', and 7.62x39 cartridges.[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] The robbers were protected by body armor which could not be penetrated by the officers' handgun and shotgun ammunition. While Phillips was shot in the hand and shortly afterward committed suicide, a SWAT officer reported during the final gunfire exchange that his M16 bullets were not penetrating M&#259;t&#259;s&#259;reanu's armor (as he was firing frangible ammunition) suggesting that the outcome could have been different had both robbers been wearing leg protection.[SUP][13][/SUP]


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Ballen 0351 you asked what I have against such weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand what your saying but you cant legislate peoples perspective.  If someone has the mindset to treat guns as toys banning the gun wont change his mindset.  A recreational object and a toy are two differnet things.  I have an AK for a few reasons. #1 its collectable and it played an important role in modern history #2 its an extreamly  durable weapon and will shoot not matter what you do with it.  When I was in Albania in the Marines I trained with some Albanian Military who used bacon fat as lub for the gun and looked like they never cleaned them and they still shot and smelled like cooking bacon to boot lol #3 it is fun to shoot.  All shooting I do is for recreation Im not a soilder in a war zone.  Im not an irresponsible gun owner I have a safe all my guns are locked up.  I follow all range safety rules.  

AS to the Bank Robbery it kinda goes against your argument since the only two people killed were the 2 robbers.  All the automatic fire they used was very ineffective.  they fireed approx 1800 rounds and only hit 18 people killing none.
2ndly banning these weapons wouldnt have prevented this event from occuring since as Bill said its already ILLEGAL to rob a bank with any and all guns.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

Steve said:


> I may be wrong, but I think Tez is Jewish.
> 
> Not trying to make light of the discussion, but *I think we could stand to lighten up the tone a little*.



Well, that's why I posted up that photo of the housewives special, it explains why we need to carry large designer bags!

I'll send Hanukah greetings!

Josh, lighten up, I can't help it if you cannot or will not take what I say the way I mean it. I'm responsible for what I say not for what you understand.
People make comments about tea loving Brits, it's light hearted, non offensive and will elicit a witty remark in return, make a remark about gun loving Americans ( notice I didn't say Yanks) and you get accusations of *critiquing *posters, slamming the American constitution and criticising the countries laws. Strewth, mate.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Well, that's why I posted up that photo of the housewives special, it explains why we need to carry large designer bags!I'll send Hanukah greetings!Josh, lighten up, I can't help it if you cannot or will not take what I say the way I mean it. I'm responsible for what I say not for what you understand.People make comments about tea loving Brits, it's light hearted, non offensive and will elicit a witty remark in return, make a remark about gun loving Americans ( notice I didn't say Yanks) and you get accusations of *critiquing *posters, slamming the American constitution and criticising the countries laws. Strewthr mate.


By your logic: bdibdjfb lsjfbfufbr odhfkdfidnd oejdhfufbfmxk. And might I add: idhffbjnf. I can't help it if you cannot or will not take what I say the way I mean it. I'm responsible for what I say, not what you understand. I have no responsibility to convey my message in a comprehensible manner. Reception and comprehension of the message are entirely the responsibility if the recipient, right? It's not like the transmitter of a message could possibly be held accountable for poor conveyance of a message through flippant negligence of English grammar and semantics, right? And how do phalanges feel against the uvula, I'd really like to know!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Dr. Sheldon Cooper...is that you?


Flattery will get you nowhere, young man! (... I lied. It gets you everywhere.)


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> By your logic: bdibdjfb lsjfbfufbr odhfkdfidnd oejdhfufbfmxk. And might I add: idhffbjnf. I can't help it if you cannot or will not take what I say the way I mean it. I'm responsible for what I say, not what you understand. I have no responsibility to convey my message in a comprehensible manner. Reception and comprehension of the message are entirely the responsibility if the recipient, right? It's not like the transmitter of a message could possibly be held accountable for poor conveyance of a message through flippant negligence of English grammar and semantics, right? And how do phalanges feel against the uvula, I'd really like to know!



Any time you feel you want to stop these personal attacks on me feel free. You don't have to like me or what I write, you can put me on ignore but personal attacks are against the rules here, as is carrying on these attacks from thread to thread.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Marksmanship is nice but we were trained for suppressive fire to limit the ability of the enemy to maneuver and to allow us to move freely around the battlefield.  Once again, single fire was what they were training us to do, not fully automatic.  It burns up way too much ammo and, as has been stated, it isn't accurate.  2004---where are the killing sprees with AK's and Ar-15's?


I don't disagree with you on your general points so far this thread, but since you asked: Geneva County massacre, and the tacoma mall shooting.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Any time you feel you want to stop these personal attacks on me feel free. You don't have to like me or what I write, you can put me on ignore but personal attacks are against the rules here, as is carrying on these attacks from thread to thread.


I'm not attacking your person, I'm attacking your logic. But by your logic, it is your responsibility to take what I say the way I mean it, not mine. If you are interpreting a humorous critique of logic and methods as a personal attack, that is your responsibility. As you said, I can only be responsible for the things I say, not what you understand.  If you cannot or will not take what I say the way I mean it, that is your responsibility, not mine.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I understand what your saying but you cant legislate peoples perspective.  If someone has the mindset to treat guns as toys banning the gun wont change his mindset.  A recreational object and a toy are two differnet things.  I have an AK for a few reasons. #1 its collectable and it played an important role in modern history #2 its an extreamly  durable weapon and will shoot not matter what you do with it.  When I was in Albania in the Marines I trained with some Albanian Military who used bacon fat as lub for the gun and looked like they never cleaned them and they still shot and smelled like cooking bacon to boot lol #3 it is fun to shoot.  All shooting I do is for recreation Im not a soilder in a war zone.  Im not an irresponsible gun owner I have a safe all my guns are locked up.  I follow all range safety rules.
> 
> AS to the Bank Robbery it kinda goes against your argument since the only two people killed were the 2 robbers.  All the automatic fire they used was very ineffective.  they fireed approx 1800 rounds and only hit 18 people killing none.
> 2ndly banning these weapons wouldnt have prevented this event from occuring since as Bill said its already ILLEGAL to rob a bank with any and all guns.



Me quoting myself is a response to the above quote. 




JohnEdward said:


> I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of *every* red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally. I don't want to see them in public at rallies, or similar events, instead I prefer to see them in the hands of police or military under those conditions. I don't want to hear one was use in any sort of crime, especially by cartels either. I would think price isn't an issue for cartels, it is availability.





JohnEdward said:


> The only time I want to see these weapons in the public&#8217;s hands is when everybody needs assault weapon is to protect the country [if need be].




It boggles my mind and creates concern for me when people disagree with what I said [my own quotes].


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Tacoma:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting

[h=2]The shooter[/h]





> The perpetrator in the shootings was 20-year-old Dominick Sergio Maldonado, who had an extensive juvenile criminal record including burglary, theft, and possession of burglary tools. He had also been given a court order not to possess any weapons. At the time of the shooting, Maldonado had recently separated from his girlfriend, and had been taking methamphetamine for five days.[SUP][3][/SUP]



I love those court orders, they should use them more often.  This is simply to point out that the criminal was...well, a criminal, and ILLEGALLY had possession of the firearm and apparently was using Meth.

Also, the weapon wasn't an AK or an AR:


> The gunman, *Dominick Maldonado*, entered the mall with a semi-automatic Norinco MAK-90 rifle and a pistol, injuring six before he instigated four armed kidnappings.


----------



## granfire (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> AS to the Bank Robbery it kinda goes against your argument since the only two people killed were the 2 robbers.  All the automatic fire they used was very ineffective.  they fireed approx 1800 rounds and only hit 18 people killing none.
> 2ndly banning these weapons wouldnt have prevented this event from occuring since as Bill said its already ILLEGAL to rob a bank with any and all guns.



Well you can't blame them, it wasn't for the lack of trying, really, that nobody croaked, at least one person came awefully close.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Geneva county:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508507,00.html

Curious, they don't mention the type of firearm used.  They say it was automatic fire, but I would like to know exactly what weapon it was.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Geneva county:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508507,00.htmlCurious, they don't mention the type of firearm used.  They say it was automatic fire, but I would like to know exactly what weapon it was.


If I remember right he used an AR15 and an SKS rifle.  It still doesn't help johns argument he continues to ignore the facts that less then 1% of all gun crimes and only used in 4% of spree killings and mass shootings involve these guns.  He just dosent want redneck to own them.  Well I don't want bad drivers allowed to drive sports cars so ban them too while were at it.  More people die from car accidents then assault weapons so at least I have a real reason for my ban not just propaganda and fear mongering.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well you can't blame them, it wasn't for the lack of trying, really, that nobody croaked, at least one person came awefully close.


no but it shows these are not the killer death machines people try to make then out to be the va tech shooter killed  32 with a 22 and 9mmI pistols.  So why not add them to the ban?  Why ban a gun on its looks and looks alone.  Its silly and not based on reality.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> If I remember right he used an AR15 and an SKS rifle.  It still doesn't help johns argument he continues to ignore the facts that less then 1% of all gun crimes and only used in 4% of spree killings and mass shootings involve these guns.  He just dosent want redneck to own them.  Well I don't want bad drivers allowed to drive sports cars so ban them too while were at it.  More people die from car accidents then assault weapons so at least I have a real reason for my ban not just propaganda and fear mongering.



I don't wish to sound rude or be rude, but what in the world are you talking about? Per your logic, it is ok for drug cartels and other criminals to have unrestricted access to high powered assault weapons, and do as they will with them absence of any consequences, so you can have a high powered assault weapon. Just because such guns are equivalent to the thrill of a sports car?   

I am concerned about public safety, I don't say, aw hell with public safety, I am owning that gun!"  

I am concern with high powered weaponry being used predominately as the gun of choice by gangs and drug cartels here and abroad. You know like this news report talks about http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2078184...-weapon-attacks-rise-miami-area/#.Tq4I-3OM6YU in 2007. Then look at what is happening with our Southern neighbors right now, for example, they love the high powered assault weapon, it works for them. 

I have a social conscious that over-rides my fancy. And unlike some, will not fight to protect my fancy tooth and nail. You say aw people dying from assault weapons isn't much, is so bad.  That type of disregard for human live, just because you love the thrill of your assault weapon being just like a sports car, it bad. But when you say something like 2% - 3% isn't too much to have assault weapons involved in crimes, well in my book that isn't ok. Evidently you think that is acceptable.  I suggest you translate that 2% into a real number. Then into real human lives.  

There is my argument. You modeled my concern and support my "argument" about why a ban/restriction on automatic weapons should exist pretty well, if I don't say so myself.


----------



## David43515 (Oct 30, 2011)

I think that when people decide they want to ban these weapons from civillian ownership in order to "fight crime" they`re missing a very important point, one that Ballen already brought up. These assult weapons aren`t used in enough crimes for a ban to make a difference. And the reason for that is simple, *you can`t stick an AK or an AR under your shirt *and walk into a club or a store without someone noticing. Someone pointed out earlier that the ONLY basic difference between hunting rifles and military sniper rifles is that hunting rifles are available in more calibers. And again, they`re hardly ever used in crimes *because they aren`t easy to conceal. 

*And i wish someone had clarified this early on, it would have saved alot of headaches. An "assault rifle", by definition, is a weapon capable of BOTH semi-auto and full auto fire, and fires an intermediate sized round. As Bill pointed out, semi-auto means that the weapon fires once for each time you pull the trigger. Fully automatic means that the weapon continues to fire as long as you hold down the trigger. Two very different animals. An intermediate round means it`s more powerful than the average pistol round, but not as powerful as a full-sized rifle round. (The idea being that since it`s designed for shorter range engagements it doesn`t need the long reach of a rifle round. Also the reduced recoil would be easier on the shooter.)


----------



## David43515 (Oct 30, 2011)

The idea of setting up requirements in order to execise a fundemental right has already been tried and proven to be a sad failure. Poll taxes and Jim Crow laws that said people should be "qualified" to vote are good examples. Human nature being what it is we tend to get drunk on our power and decide that the only people whose rights should be protected are people like us. We don`t want "the wrong kind of people" to own guns. The question becomes "_who decides who the wrong kind of people are?" 

_And I think that the way we decide now really is the only fair way. We look at what people HAVE done, rather than what they MIGHT do. Crimminals are banned from gun ownership. People who have been proven to be mentally incompitent are banned from gun ownership. And people under age are temporarily banned. Other than that, untill you show that you`re too irresponsible to own a firearm we assume you are. We do the same thing with cars, swimming pools, boats, and alchahol. No one decides when you`ve earned the right to free speech or freedom of religion, because they`re rights beyond the scope of what government was meant to regulate. The constitution doesn`t say that the government gives us our rights. It says just the opposite: that it recognizes that there are certain rights every man has that are so fundimental that the government doesn`t have the power or authority to deny them without serious cause.

I`m afraid I`ll beging to ramble if I carry on too much more, so just let me finish by saying we have 100`s if not thousands of gun laws on the books already. If they were actually enforced instead of ignored by those elected into positions of trust we wouldn`t be having nearly as many problems.


----------



## David43515 (Oct 30, 2011)

I seriosly wish I could find the source for this, but I gave up most of my books when I got married. I remember when the Brady ban was just going into effect and both sides were looking for evidence to support their agendas, a very interesting statistic came out. According to police records concerning the number of assault weapons on the street, officers in New York had been attacked by tigers (escaped from the zoo) more often than they had encountered any assault weapons.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> no but it shows these are not the killer death machines people try to make then out to be the va tech shooter killed  32 with a 22 and 9mmI pistols.  So why not add them to the ban?  Why ban a gun on its looks and looks alone.  Its silly and not based on reality.



you're saying because a Walther P 22 and a 9mm Glock :shotgun:are more of a killing machine than saying things that fires 650 or more rounds of *5.45×39mm */min:wuguns: Therefore, assault weapons are less of a killing machine?  Gee, ya better let the Mexican Drug cartels know this they are using and smuggling the wrong weapon.:hb:


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

David43515 said:


> I seriosly wish I could find the source for this, but I gave up most of my books when I got married. I remember when the Brady ban was just going into effect and both sides were looking for evidence to support their agendas, a very interesting statistic came out. According to police records concerning the number of assault weapons on the street, officers in New York had been attacked by tigers (escaped from the zoo) more often than they had encountered any assault weapons.



Yea, lucky them. You might want to share that with the Mexican police.


----------



## David43515 (Oct 30, 2011)

John, you`re comparing apples and oranges again. The weapons the cartels are buying from regular gunstores aren`t capable of doing that. They`re buying up semi-auto weapons (one bullet per trigger pull) and taking them down there. The stores don`t have a liscense to sell what you trying to ban, and each time you buy a class 3 weapon (one capable of full auto fire) there`s a huge investigation buy local and federal LEOs. Each and every time.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Excuse me for pointing this out, ...but...if you were a police officer in Ohio, recently, the odds of running into a tiger, or a lion, or a panther increased by quite a bit.


----------



## David43515 (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Yea, lucky them. You might want to share that with the Mexican police.



If Mexican Police are being shot with full auto weapons, chances are that they didn`t come from the US. They were either stolen or purchased on the black market from the police themselves or brought in from central and south america. (And unfortunately, theres also a good chance it`s being fired by another policeman on the wrong payroll.)


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

The mexican police are dealing with para-military drug cartels.  They actually have a problem with a military style operation, supplied by Chinese and European weapons, and once again, they are against Mexican law, and the activity of the drug cartels is ILLEGAL.  This once again shows that banning these weapons will not work.  The criminals understand their needs better than the do gooders do.  They will ILLEGALLY acquire the tools they need to get their business done, without regard to what the law says.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

John your argument is flawed.  You claim to want to ban assault weapons because of gun crimes.  If that were trye then why not ban all guns?  Or why not ban the. 38 revolver since the ATF says its the number 1 weapon used in all gun crimes.  Why not ban the Glock since the Va Tech shooter used it to kill way more people then any one else.  You can't have it both ways your either pro 2nd amendment or your not.   If you truly wanted to save america from gun violence then you need to actually ban the guns being used in crimes.  The only reason you want these guns banned is because MSNBC told you they were dangerious.  As for our southern neighbors banning guns in the us will not stop the violence.  They are using full auto military weapons, grenades, rock launcers all of which are already banned in the US.  The cartels are getting the guns from the mexican military and corupt police officials.  Also you keep saying we want guns available to Everyone.  That's just a lie nobody has said that.  Im all for responsible back ground checks.  Im ok with crminals and crazys not being allowed to own guns.  What im not ok with is revoking the 2nd amendment because our souther neighbor is in the middle of a drug war, and because MSNBC and Obama don't think we are responsible enough and need to protct me for my own good.  And it scares me that peopke in this country trust our govt that much.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

David43515 said:


> John, you`re comparing apples and oranges again. The weapons the cartels are buying from regular gunstores aren`t capable of doing that. They`re buying up semi-auto weapons (one bullet per trigger pull) and taking them down there. The stores don`t have a liscense to sell what you trying to ban, and each time you buy a class 3 weapon (one capable of full auto fire) there`s a huge investigation buy local and federal LEOs. Each and every time.



Chingo wa! 

Mexico-Drug-War-Wea_501688c.jpg






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War#Gun_origins


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

Where the Cartels get their guns:

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/19/where-drug-cartels-really-get-their-arms/



> According to the published documents, U.S. diplomats in Mexico





> believe that these weapons, such as grenades and rocket launchers, are being stolen from the armed forces of Central American countries. They arrive in Mexico via the 577-mile Guatemalan border that only 125 Mexican immigration officials guard. Hezbollah and the Colombian FARC terrorist groups also deserve blame, as there are increasing indicationsthat they are in bed with the drug cartels and are providing them with training, financing and possibly arms.





> As Matt Allen, Special Agent of Immigration Customs and Enforcement explained to FoxNews.com, &#8220;[N]ot every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market.&#8221; Of the guns sent to the ATF for tracing, a large amount could not be traced and therefore are not accounted for in the statistic. Guns known to be from domestic sources, like the Mexican police or military, and guns from foreign countries are not submitted.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Yea, lucky them. You might want to share that with the Mexican police.


so now we need to adjust our Constitutionlaws because of things going on in Mexico?


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

And an important point from the article above:



> In addition, it simply doesnt make sense for the Mexican drug cartels to make the U.S. their primary point of gun acquisition. As Howard Nemerov writes, Why would cartels spend over $1,000  plus a background check and smuggling risks  for a decent American semi-automatic rifle, when they can buy 4-5 fully automatic AK-47s for the same price on the black market?
> Even if it were true that U.S. gun laws are responsible for the violence in Mexico, these arms have to cross the porous border to end up being used in the drug war. Securing the border is a much more sensible solution than severe gun control laws, which wouldnt be able to stop already-purchased guns from going south. This obvious fact isnt mentioned because the Mexican government and left-wing politicians would rather portray gun control, rather than border security, as the solution.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

It always amazes me how people think if we ban guns then gun crimes will stop.  By its very definition a criminal does not follow the LAW that's why they are Criminals.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The mexican police are dealing with para-military drug cartels.  They actually have a problem with a military style operation, supplied by Chinese and European weapons, and once again, they are against Mexican law, and the activity of the drug cartels is ILLEGAL.  This once again shows that banning these weapons will not work.  The criminals understand their needs better than the do gooders do.  They will ILLEGALLY acquire the tools they need to get their business done, without regard to what the law says.



Yea, that's the liberal NIMBY argument I was waiting for from a conservative, good job Bill.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> It always amazes me how people think if we ban guns then gun crimes will stop.  By its very definition a criminal does not follow the LAW that's why they are Criminals.



It amazes me that people think that.... people think that ^^^^^^.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> It amazes me that people think that.... people think that ^^^^^^.


sadly john you think that you have made it clear.  You want to ban these weapons so the drug cartels will stop shooting eachother in Mexico.  You seem to think banning these guns the bad guys will say oh darn I can't use that AK any more its banned I guess I better turn it in.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> so now we need to adjust our Constitutionlaws because of things going on in Mexico?



Here now let's bring my mother and how well she throws cow patties, as then we need to adjust the Bill of Rights.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

Ok guys, this is gotten pretty bad and y'all are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.  It's time to call it quits, ya gave it a good run, ya did yer best, but it's over. Time to close the barn yard door on this and go home. This horse race is over.


----------



## billc (Oct 30, 2011)

I didn't get the nimby argument in my post.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Here now let's bring my mother and how well she throws cow patties, as then we need to adjust the Bill of Rights.


Your the one using a problem in mexico as a reason to change laws in the US not me.  Of course that was after your first few arguments were proven wrong.  So now your just using keith oberman talking points


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Ok guys, this is gotten pretty bad and y'all are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.  It's time to call it quits, ya gave it a good run, ya did yer best, but it's over. Time to close the barn yard door on this and go home. This horse race is over.


yeah your right we have effectively beaten all your lies and lib talking points you can go now.  Thanks for playing try harder next time maybe try to get a few facts to back up your points.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> yeah your right we have effectively beaten all your lies and lib talking points you can go now.  Thanks for playing try harder next time maybe try to get a few facts to back up your points.



Now...now...now, no need to be a sore loser. No need for poor sportsmanship here.  Time to move on to something else.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 30, 2011)

Oh my dear.

Prior to the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, the legal definition of an "assault rifle" was one capable of fully automatic fire. The 1994 law entered the vagueness zone with a variety of features for pistols, rifles and shotguns: if I put a pistol grip stock on a semi-automatic shotgun with a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds, it becomes an "assault weapon." If I have a rifle with any of two _purely cosmetic_ features, it becomes an "assault weapon," regardless of caliber or servicability: bayonet lug and folding stock? Well then, it doesn't matter if it only fires .22 shorts, it's an assault weapon.






How about this? Should it be banned, or should I be permitted to own it? It fires .308, has a single stack 10 round magazine-though I have 5 round ones that are legal for elk hunting, it's likely that I'll only load a single shot-I just bought it this year, and haven't taken it hunting at all......fierce looking, isn't it? That seems to me, anyway, to be the only qualification for a banned weapon.......


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Oh my dear.
> 
> Prior to the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, the legal definition of an "assault rifle" was one capable of fully automatic fire. The 1994 law entered the vagueness zone with a variety of features for pistols, rifles and shotguns: if I put a pistol grip stock on a semi-automatic shotgun with a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds, it becomes an "assault weapon." If I have a rifle with any of two _purely cosmetic_ features, it becomes an "assault weapon," regardless of caliber or servicability: bayonet lug and folding stock? Well then, it doesn't matter if it only fires .22 shorts, it's an assault weapon.
> 
> ...



FWIW, I know way back before 1994, a shotgun barrel sawed-off...period...was consider an assault weapon. Later barrel length came into place determining an assault weapon.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> FWIW, I know way back before 1994, a shotgun barrel sawed-off...period...was consider an assault weapon. Later barrel length came into place determining an assault weapon.



Which state?  Most states have laws against sawed off shotguns but that doesn't mean that they fit the criteria for an "assault" weapon, simply that they are banned.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> FWIW, I know way back before 1994, a shotgun barrel sawed-off...period...was consider an assault weapon. Later barrel length came into place determining an assault weapon.



Prior to 1994 the classification "assault weapon" did not exist; there were "assault rifles," which were classified as full-auto capable selective fire rifles, and were already mostly banned as "machine guns" by the National Firearms Act of 1934, as were "sawed-off" shotguns, shotguns with barrels shorter than 18" or stocks shorter than 26".


----------



## David43515 (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Chingo wa!
> 
> Mexico-Drug-War-Wea_501688c.jpg
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War#Gun_origins



Chingo Wa? A picture of a rack full of uzis and a link to Wikipedea? A link, by the way, that actually says that the weapons they`re getting from the US aren`t capable of full auto firing without being modified and that the millitary grade weapons are coming in from the Guatamalan border or being stolen from the Mexican govt. What are you trying to do, prove my point by repeating it?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Back in the day, the classification of "assault rifles" for shot guns didn't exist, for us, at least what we were aware of. Years later we told or heard about barrel lengths requirements. But we didn't know any of that back then. We didn't have the internet back than.  Hell, for kicks we'd make other modifications to our shot guns (and other rifles), not because we where moonshiners, either. Prohibition was long over.  We had guns on the farm as a tool and for hunting and killing varmints. We were making prototypes and not realizing it. On the farm in those days guns were used for hunting and killing varmints. But, we where learning by doing. Modifying a gun for practicality reasons on the farm, at least we thought so.  Funny story how we ran into a bear, armed to the teeth but ran like hell.   :lol:  Times have changed. Thanks for bring back old memories.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 31, 2011)

[video]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81959216/[/video]
For my buddy John Happy Halloween


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> It amazes me that people think that.... people think that ^^^^^^.



Argument from personal incredulity? Ok, it might amaze you, BUT having known some less understanding people, I have seen that it is immensely easy to get a weapon through non-legal channels. 

The thing is, whether it amazes you or not, you haven't actually shot down the logic. Bans have a tumultuous history in America. Illegal drugs are banned, and you can get them with ease. Prostitution is banned, and you can get that with ease. Cuban cigars are banned, and you can get them with ease. Alcohol used to be banned, and yes, you could get that with ease too.

Similarly, a ban on assault weapons doesn't make it hard for someone with money to get. The only people affected by a ban are those who abide by it. 

So, continue with the personal incredulity, or actually address the argument?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

John and Steve, we have, in my opinion, enough controls on law abiding citizens' rights to bear arms in this country-in fact, we probably have too many. Of course, we really have to look to the history of _why_ the Founders' said we had that right, and delineated it in our Bill of Rights as _one that the Federal Government_ cannot infringe.

In his dissent of the Dec 10, 2010 _District of Columbia v. Heller_ decision, and on December 12, 2010, on Fox News Sunday, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Founding Fathers never intended for guns to go unregulated. His reasoning was that James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, actually didn't want the 2nd Amendment, and he further claimed most historians would stand with him on this. 
Let me start by saying that* Breyer is right*, Madison didn't want the 2nd Amendment. But what he fails to mention is that Madison also didn't want the 1st, 3rd, 4th, or any of the other the first 10 amendments. He didn't want a Bill of Rights. Thus, using Breyer's logic, he must believe the Founding Fathers wanted to regulate speech and religion, require self-incrimination, etc. Perhaps in the future he's going to use this argument to rule in favor of censorship, self-incrimination, state-sponsored religion, etc.

The reason Madison didn't want a Bill of Rights was that he didn't think it belonged in the Constitution. He and many of the other Founders held that since there are no powers in the Constitution that grant the federal government the power to take away our rights, it was unneeded. (See Article I, Section 8 to see what powers were being granted to the United States.) Besides, the state constitutions almost all contained their own protections. So, including the amendments was not only a waste of time, it also provided the illusion that they weren't Natural or God-given rights; they were the gift of the federal government to bend, ignore, or abrogate as it wished.

However, what Breyer specifically said was that neither Madison nor the other Founders wanted the 2nd Amendment and that Madison only included it to appease the other Founders who did want it.

Wait minute. Others Founders wanted it? In one breath he said the Founders didn't want it, in the next he's willing to contradict himself.

If it must be known, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and many other Founders *insisted* on the 2nd. More importantly, he fails to mention that Madison, one of the authors of what we now call the Federalist Papers, advocated the private ownership of guns by Americans in numbers 46 and 54, both of which predate the Bill of Rights. So it is odd that Breyer would claim Madison was against the 2nd, and that most historians would stand with him on this, when it is so easily demonstrated his claim is false. Perhaps Breyer should read works of more competent historians or study some history himself. 


Another claim of Breyer's was that Madison only agreed to the 2nd Amendment so he could get the Constitution ratified, but the Constitution, written in 1787, was already ratified by June 21, 1788 &#8212; three and a half years before the Bill of Rights, where the 2nd can be found, was adopted. So, the 2nd Amendment could have been dispensed with had the Founders so wished, but there are no records showing that any one of them ever attempted to do so.

The last thing I want to point out (and I do this not only for Justice Breyer, but for others who claim that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the states to have militias and not an individual's right to bear arms), is that the Founders were very careful to distinguish between the people, the states, and the United States. The people are mentioned twice in the original Constitution, the states 26 times, and the United States 55 times. More telling, the people are mentioned five times in the Bill of Rights, the states three times, and the United States twice, and all three are mentioned together in the 10th Amendment. That Amendment doesn't even make sense if the Founders weren't carefully distinguishing among the people, the states, and the federal government.

So, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is clear:

_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._

We the people have the right to keep and bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe upon this right. And, since the passing of the 14th Amendment, the states cannot infringe on any of our rights, either.

If one looks to the Dred Scott case, the full wording of it denied blacks full rights because it _"would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."_. In other words, the Supreme Court, in 1857, said that free men have the right to keep and bear arms. I have a hard time believing that Justice Breyer, even following the liberal agenda towards guns, and with his interprative style of jurisprudence, could make statements to the effect that the Founders wanted this right regulated-I further find it difficult to tolerate the folly of American citizens who say as much......


----------



## Steve (Oct 31, 2011)

It's also important to context to note that the founding fathers almost universally distrusted and denounced the creation of a standing army.  The well-regulated militia was a safeguard against tyranny, both from within and without.

In other words, I agree with the spirit of the 2nd amendment, but we live in times that differ fundamentally from the context in which the 2nd amendment was drafted.

As always, I appreciate the food for thought.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Back in the day, the classification of "assault rifles" for shot guns didn't exist,.



It still doesn't. It never did. "Assault rifles," are, as I said, full-auto capable *rifles*-not shotguns. _Assault weapons_ are something completely different, that didn't exist until 1994-the classification, such as it is, encompasses rifles, pistols, and shotguns, on mostly cosmetic grounds.

Sawed-off and short shotguns (barrel length under 18") have been specially classified since 1934. While one can own them and other firearms under the classification-mostly as a collector, for example-their possession or use, or modifying weapons to fit the classifications, and, in some instances, even owning parts that facilitate such modifications, like the trigger groups of certain selective fire rifles that have semi-auto models, is a violation of federal law without the proper paper work, and one that carries pretty sever penalties. 

So, unless you're like 92 years old, sawed off shotguns have been largely illegal for most of your shooting life, and you were breaking the law.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Argument from personal incredulity? Ok, it might amaze you, BUT having known some less understanding people, I have seen that it is immensely easy to get a weapon through non-legal channels.
> 
> The thing is, whether it amazes you or not, you haven't actually shot down the logic. Bans have a tumultuous history in America. Illegal drugs are banned, and you can get them with ease. Prostitution is banned, and you can get that with ease. Cuban cigars are banned, and you can get them with ease. Alcohol used to be banned, and yes, you could get that with ease too.
> 
> ...



When I was explaining my views, had nothing to do with this at all. I wasn't directly speak about the ban or any ban directly or in detail. It was all in relation of the perspective the article took.  Though the entire discourse, I found it interesting how those who put up counter views and arguments threw in everything and the kitchen sink, projected all sorts of non-sense, preposterousness tactics to prove me wrong- I simply support the ban (be in place or not) associated to the idea that I am opposed to having it socially acceptable for  everyone to have an AK patterned weapon readily available to them to own. I say horse pucky. A concern I laid out so many times, it's now patented. As pro-gun, I am feel most people have lost their respect and fear of such a weapon. 

I see I was being called Anti-American, and all sorts of other irrationally and emotionally nonsense thrown at me, and that I was accused of. All because I support  the view of respect, common sense and fear for such a weapon, which in part means don't arm the societal nut jobs, the idiots, criminals and extremists with what they want, easy access to assault weapons. Evidently that touched a nerve with some.  

 I noticed the temperament of some in the discussion that result of the unreasonable and irrelevant reactions and replies I got.  The extremism of some replies where was so off-based, pronounced and intense, it lead me to caution, to think these are the people who want to have such a gun?  I question for what purpose they want such unrestricted availability to high powered assault weapons? I said guns are dangerous and don't belong in the hands of some people, people who are not rational, don't have a brain, irresponsible etc. what is wrong with keeping guns out of their hand? Nothing unless, someone fits the bill who wants that type of gun. 

 That article's was really a joke in logic and persuasion to say the least. I will live with a ban on assault  (no matter how effective or not) in the effort to subside any change in social attitude that supports a free for all, unregulated, unrestricted access to AK patterned assault weapons. A view I feel is dangerous and irresponsible demonstrated by the author of the article and by some here.  That is what I was discussing. 

Now if anyone would like some good Chicken soup, I got a recipe.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 31, 2011)

If it is a dilettantish question please forgive me and but can I ask my American friends, why do you _need _a firearm (or the ability to legally procure one)?

Again, if this is a stupid question, I beg your forgiveness.  I live in London.  There is a lot of crime here like anywhere.  There is also a lot of armed crime, drug crime, gang crime etc etc.  I might like to own a pistol and but it is not legal here.  

My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all?  Thank you. Jenna


----------



## Blindside (Oct 31, 2011)

Jenna said:


> My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all? Thank you. Jenna



If you look at the words of many of the Founders, we would be worse off because it would be more difficult to overthrow the government should that become necessary.  They were revolutionaries after all.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

Jenna said:


> If it is a dilettantish question please forgive me and but can I ask my American friends, why do you _need _a firearm (or the ability to legally procure one)?



I'll answer the question straight up, without asking any counter ones:

_TO KILL STUFF._

Seriously, target shooting is fun, and there are several sports built around it, and that's enough. I also hunt, as in "kill stuff," like elk, feral hog and bison-things that actually require a bit of serious firepower-or real accuracy and stalking ability with a bow, depending on which hunt I've drawn. 

We also live and play in an area where we can encounter bears or mountain lions-while I'd really hate to shoot a bear, I'd hate being mauled by one even more. We also had livestock at one time, and will again, and we need firearms against predators like coyotes and said bears and lions.

THen, we have several firearms ready in the home, against home invasion-something that takes place quite a bit more than people would like to believe. Lastly, though, there's usually a pistol close by,if not on our persons, especially in Albuquerque or Denver, as an edge against two-legged urban predators-I have one within reach in the car, or we're carrying, unless we're going somewhere where alcohol is served, or are planning on indulging ourselves......



Jenna said:


> My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all? Thank you. Jenna



Well, if I simply wanted to carry one against two-legged urban predators, and I couldn't, I'd be worse off.

First and foremost, though-and, as unlikely as it is-*what Lamont said.*


----------



## billc (Oct 31, 2011)

Well, there are many more eloquent defenders of the right to keep and bear arms, but I will add my two cents.  The main reason that we need a firearm or any weapons that appear in the future, is personal protection, from other citizens who may have criminal intent, and from the government who might try to impose itself on us outside of the constitutional provisions.  Also, long term, we protect the right for ourselves, now, and for future Americans who aren't born yet.  As I said in an earlier post on this thread, the right to keep weapons is a building block of a free people.   Look around the world and find all the countries that have committed mass murder against their citizens or the citizen's of other countries, and you will see people who were prevented from having their own weapons.  That is at the heart of the argument for keeping and bearing weapons, whatever their nature may be, now and in the future, personal protection.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I see I was being called Anti-American, and all sorts of other garbage because I am exercise the view of respect, common sense and fear for such a weapon. ....



Actually Your argument was :
"Because I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of *every* red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally."

When given the FACTS that these weapons are used in under 1% of all gun crimes you refuse to comment on it and ignore it because it goes against your argument.  When Asked WHY you pick THESE guns you replied:
"Do we need more nuts and criminal to have greater access to *high powered automatic weapons* like candy?  I don't"

Again ignoring that these weapons are only used by criminals in 1/5 of 1% of gun crimes and that the .38 special revolver is the #1 used gun by criminals.

Then you changed your argument to protecting Police Officers ignoring the fact more officers are kill by gun fire are shot by their own guns and only an extreamly small % were killed with an assault weapon.

Then you changed you argument to you dont want unrestricted availability to guns when NOBODY said anyhting about unrestriceted.  Nobody agrees with felons and crazy people having guns.

Then you said People should have to EARN the rights given to them by the constitution when you said:
" I am a firm believer before that right is granted you have to demonstrate you are worthy of that right, and adhere to and understand the responsible of that right. Otherwise you lose that right"
Which goes against everything in our constitution which our laws are limited by.

Then you had theis GEM of a line:
"You live in a society, rights are granted by the freakin Govt"
Our rights are not Granted but the GOVT according to the constitution our rights were granted by GOD and WE THE PEOPLE limit the Govt power not the other way around.

And then when all your argument were shot down you moved on to look at Mexico we need to ban our guns for the Mexicans.  

then you were just mad everyone does not agree with you:
"It boggles my mind and creates concern for me when people disagree with what I said"

Then you went back to false information:
"I am concern with high powered weaponry being used predominately as the gun of choice by gangs and drug cartels here and abroad."
I lie that was already shown to be false

Then you went back to Mexico:
"You might want to share that with the Mexican police."

Then you lost me with this one:
"Here now let's bring my mother and how well she throws cow patties"

Then you gave up and started talking about how you modified guns as a kid.

That pretty much summed up your flawed arguments.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Jenna said:


> If it is a dilettantish question please forgive me and but can I ask my American friends, why do you _need _a firearm (or the ability to legally procure one)?
> 
> Again, if this is a stupid question, I beg your forgiveness.  I live in London.  There is a lot of crime here like anywhere.  There is also a lot of armed crime, drug crime, gang crime etc etc.  I might like to own a pistol and but it is not legal here.
> 
> My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all?  Thank you. Jenna



It is a cultural thing, the west was won with a Winchester. Unlike, the English, who conquered much of the world with a sword. We are fanatical when it comes to fire arms, as well as having a healthy firearms industry, that has some historic ties like Winchester. For us a gun is symbolic as the sword is in other parts of the world. Because guns can be improved upon, we never laid our love affair or the symbol of power to rest.  

Allot of people will reference our 2nd Amendment, and they do it for political and other reasons. But it really isn't the reason why we love guns today.   It comes from the Old West. "Where the gun was the only law." And the gun became apart of daily Western life and culture. Then there was the big game/ hunting movement romanticized by Roosevelt and Hemingway, etc. holding high gun culture.   Then the romanticism of Hollywood with guns from westerns to ganger, then to movies of today. Then guns play to people insecurities and fantasies, and unfortunately as a tool to their criminal enterprise.  I just skimmed over the reason. There is more too it. But it gives you an idea. Not everyone is so gung ho about guns. You have broad spectrum of opinions why we need to procure firearms. Some feel it has it place in self defense.  Some don't. In terms of crime.  It is hard to pin point the reason why. Some say it is driven by the firearms industry, some say it is our "right." There are allot of possible reasons. So, it is easier to say we are a gun culture. In my opinion not a very responsible one at that.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

John Edward, while you're kind of right about a few things, so much of gthis post is wrong I just .....



JohnEdward said:


> It is a cultural thing, the west was won with a Winchester.



The West was stolen. Look at how you spell the name of your home state. I'm not even going to get into the Alamo...:lfao:

It is a cultural thing, though.




JohnEdward said:


> Unlike, the English, who conquered much of the world with a sword. We are fanatical when it comes to fire arms, as well as having a healthy firearms industry, that has some historic ties like Winchester. For us a gun is symbolic as the sword is in other parts of the world. Because guns can be improved upon, we never laid our love affair or *the symbol of power to rest*.



Because it's not just a symbol of power-in our culture, it's a symbol of freedom.




JohnEdward said:


> Allot of people will reference our 2nd Amendment, and they do it for political and other reasons. But it really isn't the reason why we love guns today. It comes from the Old West. "Where the gun was the only law." And the gun became apart of daily Western life and culture.



That Old Wet is largely a myth, and guns came before that myth, I'm afraid. Guns largely became a bigger part of our culture because of the Civil War-returning servicemen on both sides often kept their arms, and the number of households-especially _urban_ households-with arms increased. It was this increase that led to the founding of the NRA, principally as an organ of firearms education.

As for the Founders,they kind of loved guns, John:



> _A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks._
> --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.​_One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them._
> --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
> "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
> ...




It's worth noting that I began with Jefferson, and ended with Hamilton, two men whose mutual dislike and disagreements history gives us ample evidence of, yet on this matter they were in complete agreement.

As for the rest of your post:
​



JohnEdward said:


> Then there was the big game/ hunting movement romanticized by Roosevelt and Hemingway, etc. holding high gun culture. Then the romanticism of Hollywood with guns from westerns to ganger, then to movies of today. Then guns play to people insecurities and fantasies, and unfortunately as a tool to their criminal enterprise. I just skimmed over the reason. There is more too it. But it gives you an idea. Not everyone is so gung ho about guns. You have broad spectrum of opinions why we need to procure firearms. Some feel it has it place in self defense. Some don't. In terms of crime. It is hard to pin point the reason why. Some say it is driven by the firearms industry, some say it is our "right." There are allot of possible reasons. So, it is easier to say we are a gun culture. In my opinion not a very responsible one at that.





_pancake bunny._  :lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 31, 2011)

you will find that is a recurring theme with him, last week, he insulted all nurses, then backpeddled to claim he was just suing that as a figure of speech. Trust me, he is a prime candidate for the iggy list, you wont miss out on much of anything.




ballen0351 said:


> Actually Your argument was :
> "Because I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of *every* red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally."
> 
> When given the FACTS that these weapons are used in under 1% of all gun crimes you refuse to comment on it and ignore it because it goes against your argument.  When Asked WHY you pick THESE guns you replied:
> ...


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Now, now, TF let's play nice.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

elder999 said:


> John Edward, while you're kind of right about a few things, so much of gthis post is wrong I just .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am really glad you don't teach Texas history in Texas. :lol: Isn't that the crux of history, it is so subjective. I don't think anyone really knows, when we fell in love with guns. I know America wasn't the only country with muskets, and flint locks and they don't have the same love affair as we do. But we did develop better guns that where revolutionary like the Winchester. That really had an impact on our culture.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I am really glad you don't teach history.



Well, I suppose that Daniel Boone,  was  exploring "the Old West," when he forged the trail through the Cumberland Gap to Kentucky, back in *1767*-Kentucky was, after all, west of the colonies, but I don't think that's what you meant. Oddly enough, Boone was equipped with and famous for his use of *a gun*-from then and through the Revolutionary War. 

Oh, and among the many things I have done, one of them was teach high school history

I am really glad all your arguments are so weak and easily rebutted.

Oh,we edited. Ok.



JohnEdward said:


> I am really glad you don't teach Texas history in Texas. :lol: Isn't that the crux of history, it is so subjective. I don't think anyone really knows, when we fell in love with guns. I know America wasn't the only country with muskets, and flint locks and they don't have the same love affair as we do. But we did develop better guns that where revolutionary like the Winchester. That really had an impact on our culture.



The martyrs of the Alamo were traitorous rebels against the government of Mexico: they'd sworn allegiance to the government, and converted to Catholicism, becoming Mexican citizens. History is written by the winners-not the Mexicans, and not the Indians, from whom all the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was stolen.


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 31, 2011)

considering what I think of you, and COULD have posted, i was being nice 




JohnEdward said:


> Now, now, TF let's play nice.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I am really glad you don't teach Texas history in Texas. :lol: Isn't that the crux of history, it is so subjective. I don't think anyone really knows, when we fell in love with guns. I know America wasn't the only country with muskets, and flint locks and they don't have the same love affair as we do. But we did develop better guns that where revolutionary like the Winchester. That really had an impact on our culture.


While I disagree with the term love affair, we have endorsed guns all the way back to the revolution. Read the Federalist papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, or a number of other founders or framers.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Ok guys, this is gotten pretty bad and y'all are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.  It's time to call it quits, ya gave it a good run, ya did yer best, but it's over. Time to close the barn yard door on this and go home. This horse race is over.


This reminds me of Bush declaring victory over Iraq. Or Saddam Hussein declaring victory over America.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> This reminds me of Bush declaring victory over Iraq. Or Saddam Hussein declaring victory over America.



Hey that is a Republican thing, and a dictator thing - see the relationship?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Hey that is a Republican thing, and a dictator thing - see the relationship?


Dude, that was tongue-in-cheek, referencing the similar nature of you acting like you won the debate, and the other two people I mentioned doing the same thing.Recasting it as some comparison between republicans and dictators just isn't gonna work. Especially since I am critical of BOTH the Republican and Democratic Parties.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

You express a rational common sense opinion and you're burned at the stake by mob with pitch forks and torches.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> You express a rational common sense opinion and you're burned at the stake by mob with pitch forks and torches.



Neither rational, nor common sense. Not even well expressed. 

And I haven't burned you at the stake, we hardly constitute a mob, and the metaphorical pitchforks and torches are nowhere to be seen-I mean, you're still posting, right? :lfao:

If it's reasoned discourse you're looking for, you could answer the question about my Ruger, back in post #115.....


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> You express a rational common sense opinion and you're burned at the stake by mob with pitch forks and torches.


An appeal to common sense is a fallacy. It is inforinformed and not inherently rational.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Neither rational, nor common sense. Not even well expressed.
> 
> And I haven't burned you at the stake, we hardly constitute a mob, and the metaphorical pitchforks and torches are nowhere to be seen-I mean, you're still posting, right? :lfao:
> 
> If it's reasoned discourse you're looking for, you could answer the question about my Ruger, back in post #115.....



You're absolutely, right. I am still posting....hmmmmm.  I hate burnt stake, it's all dry and charred, not appetizing.  Though mob is defined as ordinary people.  I borrowed that imagery anyway, don't blame me.  I would have went with, you express some common sense and they crucify you. But some people only relate crucifixion to Christ.  I was thinking more along the lines of martyrdom.   To answer your question, no. Been to that rodeo, came out like a champ.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, I suppose that Daniel Boone,  was  exploring "the Old West," when he forged the trail through the Cumberland Gap to Kentucky, back in *1767*-Kentucky was, after all, west of the colonies, but I don't think that's what you meant. Oddly enough, Boone was equipped with and famous for his use of *a gun*-from then and through the Revolutionary War.
> 
> Oh, and among the many things I have done, one of them was teach high school history
> 
> ...



How this relates to my answer to  Jenna's question I will never know. You don't make scarecrows for a living would ya, or is just a hobby?  

I wouldn't be going around down here in Texas spreading that blaspheme. There are folk down here who take their Texas history very seriously.  We have a whole lotta streets and towns, statues all over the place, named and in honor of those men you slander. Some people would get very emotional about hearing what you said - so they don't read how is that my fault- kind a like a wounded bear.  Me, I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it is wrong.

My friend let me leave you with these words from Sam Houston, _"I am aware that in presenting myself as the advocate of the indians and their rights, I shall stand very much alone." 


_Seriously, my friend apart from that you know nothing of Tejas history. Well maybe the slavery part, but not the other history.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Boys, I had a good time. It's time for this Rodeo to end.  I am sorry y'all going home a little sore, but not worse for wear.  Y'all put up a good fight and I respect that.  TF, it still stings doesn't it.  You just get some more rest and you will be good as new in no time. !Amigos, Calladita te ves más bonita! :lol:


----------



## elder999 (Nov 1, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I wouldn't be going around down here in Texas spreading that blaspheme. There are folk down here who take their Texas history very seriously. We have a whole lotta streets and towns, statues all over the place, named and in honor of those men you slander. Some people would get very emotional about hearing what you said - so they don't read how is that my fault- kind a like a wounded bear. Me, I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it is wrong.



The settlers of Texas swore an oath to Mexico, converted to Catholicism, and became Mexican citizens-that's fact, not slander.:



> Mexico imposed two conditions on land ownership: settlers had to become Mexican citizens and they had to convert to Roman Catholicism. By l830 there were l6,000 Americans in Texas. At that time, Americans formed a 4-to-1 majority in the northern section of Coahuila y Tejas, but people Hispanic heritage formed a majority in the state as a whole.



That they became Texans in the _Republic of Texas_ had more to do with Santa Anna-his ineptitude as well as his dicatorship-than the controls rightfully exercised by the government of Mexico that preceded his dictatorship.

In any case, they were traitorous citizens of Mexico, much as the Founding fathers were traitorous citizens of England. Deal with it. :lfao: 



JohnEdward said:


> Seriously, my friend you know nothing of Tejas history.



A bit more than you do, apparently....:lfao:


Oh, and that Houston quote? Cute-it's from when he lived with the Cherokee_, before _going to Tejas....though he did advocate peace with the Comanches.....

As for makers of scarecrows, it is you who has deftly avoided adressing the original topic of this thread, or even answering my simple question, posed in post #115.


----------



## David43515 (Nov 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> If it is a dilettantish question please forgive me and but can I ask my American friends, why do you _need _a firearm (or the ability to legally procure one)?
> 
> Again, if this is a stupid question, I beg your forgiveness. I live in London. There is a lot of crime here like anywhere. There is also a lot of armed crime, drug crime, gang crime etc etc. I might like to own a pistol and but it is not legal here.
> 
> My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all? Thank you. Jenna



Fair question Jenna. For my part it just comes to a question of practicality. A firearm is the most practical meathod available for one person to protect their life or property from another bent on taking it. A friend once told me he carried a pistol because he couldn`t carry a policeman. The US is a very spacious area compared with most of Europe, even in big cities it can be several minutes from the time someone is able to call the police and the time they are able to arrive.

My wife is small even by Japanese standards. My mother is 81 yrs old and has arthritis and two artificial knees. And yet either of them would be able to hold 2-3 large men at bay with a firearm. As long as some distance is maintained, the take away the advantages of strength and size.I think that`s why statistics show that the largest growing group of first time gunowners in the US is over 60. (Granted we`re an aging society, but still I think it`s pertinent.)  And as a culture we`ve always been taught that society respected the individual`s right to protect himself (and his duty to protect others). We`ve also always been taught that all of our other freedoms were insured by that right. If we limited the right of otherwise upright and law abiding people to own the most effective tools to protect themselves, I think most of us would feel that all our other freedoms were suddenly in a much more precarious position. Just my two cents.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 1, 2011)

Ingnore


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 1, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The settlers of Texas swore an oath to Mexico, converted to Catholicism, and became Mexican citizens-that's fact, not slander.:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So ya want this cowboy to ride one more bull of yours, well here it goes, one more time. Let me ask you a question, do ya? Do ya feel luck punk do ya? Ok so it wasn't the old west that started our love of guns, it was Dirty Harry. 

Ya gotta stop going to wikipedia and pulling off of it, that is just wrong. Don't argue with me about Texas history, argue with Texas it is one big assed state. 

I didn't avoid the OT, that is what got this party started in here. See it is like this, "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." -Dirty Harry 



I was honest and told you I didn't want to answer your question. But now, to answer your question in the immortal words of old Clint Eastwood said that reflects my feeling about this thread too, "I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it."

"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood. Boy was he proven right! :lol:


----------



## elder999 (Nov 1, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Ya gotta stop going to wikipedia and pulling off of it, that is just wrong. Don't argue with me about Texas history, argue with Texas it is one big assed state.



Not pulling off of wikipedia. Direct linked to a reference in my post. Know my Texas history pretty well, actually-sorry that you're *wrong*, but you are.

Actually, you demonstrate pretty well how the whole _Remember the Alamo_ mythos got us mired in Vietnam....:lol: 



JohnEdward said:


> II was honest and told you I didn't want to answer your question. To answer your question in the immortal words of old Clint Eastwood said that reflects my feeling about this thread too, "I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it." "I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood. Boy was he proven right!



So, what you're saying is that you're insecure because mine is bigger than yours? That is extremely prejudiced! Good night! :lfao:


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 1, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Actually, you demonstrate pretty well how the whole _Remember the Alamo_ mythos got us mired in Vietnam....:lol:



 Yea....I get it, it is that Abet and Costello, whose on first routine. :lol: Funny. You got brownies with me.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, there are many more eloquent defenders of the right to keep and bear arms, but I will add my two cents.  The main reason that we need a firearm or any weapons that appear in the future, is personal protection, from other citizens who may have criminal intent, and from the government who might try to impose itself on us outside of the constitutional provisions.  Also, long term, we protect the right for ourselves, now, and for future Americans who aren't born yet.  As I said in an earlier post on this thread, the right to keep weapons is a building block of a free people.   Look around the world and find all the countries that have committed mass murder against their citizens or the citizen's of other countries, and you will see people who were prevented from having their own weapons.  That is at the heart of the argument for keeping and bearing weapons, whatever their nature may be, now and in the future, personal protection.



Yes I understand what you and others have intimated regarding the revolutionary aspect of firearm ownership.  I think, considering the age of the constitution, that is oddly modern and relevant for today, using, exactly as you have alluded to, the Middle East and North African nations whose governments have attempted to _forceably _suppress the citizens in their right to express political choices freely.

Can I ask though please, if we consider just that one aspect of why it is right to be able to arm oneself, do you think there is a real, clear need in the modern, free USA to be able to defend against your own political / military powers-that-be?  I think to me, America I would regard as the paradigm for democracy and then I am wondering *why *is there any need to protect against _the American government / powers-that-be_?  How come that is a valid need?  I am not making a statement, only asking your opinion as I do not know enough about the situation.


----------



## David43515 (Nov 1, 2011)

Actually I think that in the last 15 years or so, more people on both sides of the aisle would argue that the government has been adding more and more powers to what they beleive they have a right to do. Clinton wanted to have people who live in federal housing give up their rights to refuse warrantless searches. Bush pushed through the Patriot act which didn`t really give law enforcement any "new" powers, but it removed alot of the safegaurds that made it difficult to abuse those powers. Obama basically nationalized the auto industry and has said that my health care suddenly falls under "interstate commerce". And during Hurricane Katrina the Army/ National Guard went around confiscating firearms from homeowners who hadn`t done anything (despite previous supreme court cases where this was declared illegal even during martial law). I trust individuals that make up my government, but I also have enough experiance with human nature that I don`t trust people when they gather in to groups where they  can`t be heald individually accountable for their actions.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Yes I understand what you and others have intimated regarding the revolutionary aspect of firearm ownership.  I think, considering the age of the constitution, that is oddly modern and relevant for today, using, exactly as you have alluded to, the Middle East and North African nations whose governments have attempted to _forceably _suppress the citizens in their right to express political choices freely.
> 
> Can I ask though please, if we consider just that one aspect of why it is right to be able to arm oneself, do you think there is a real, clear need in the modern, free USA to be able to defend against your own political / military powers-that-be?  I think to me, America I would regard as the paradigm for democracy and then I am wondering *why *is there any need to protect against _the American government / powers-that-be_?  How come that is a valid need?  I am not making a statement, only asking your opinion as I do not know enough about the situation.



It is primarily an understanding that at some point, powerful organizations such as governments become more about consolidating power than anything else. And it doesn't happen over night. It happens incrementally, slowly, easily. Should the American government become so oppressive that we the people are oppressed more than we can bare (even in a paradigm of democracy, this can happen. And America's not actually a pure democracy, but a representative democracy-- a democratic republic) then we have some power to rise up, shuck them off, and start again. By divesting ourself of the access to weapons, we make it all the more likely that any resistance would be futile. THe only ones able to fight back would be those with the guns. Namely, criminals. We see this type of revolution in certain parts of South America.

Now of course, ideally, these issues are solved before they become that serious, in the public forum. But if we don't notice the changes until it is too late to prevent them (and again, this can happen slowly, gradually, and naturally), then the only way to vote may be the bullet. This is not anything Americans want, but it is what some of us prepare for. 

It's very akin to martial arts because, well, it IS martial. All of us on all these forums train to some degree, and for the most art we want to be able to defend ourselves. But most of us will also go out of our way to make sure situations do not become so bad that we _have _to fight. This is the same with a gun. We keep, bear, and train with arms hoping (for the majority of us) that we will never have to use them, but prepared to if necessary.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 1, 2011)

It seems many of us are of two mindsets, we fear government power as Josh points out, (though corporate power is what we should fear), or we fear those who who are in fear of and don't trust the government or its power (specifically one party).  Some people feel if they arm themselves and the right to do they will be ready for the day government takes over, stripping them of all their freedoms and rights. Some people see those people becoming a self-fulling Prophesy, that they are what they fear.  Those who fear government power as Josh pointed out, see their counter parts as weak, unstable, out of touch sheep - per se.  I don't know the origin of these views. I don't understand the fears of either side. Both sides equally argue and justify their rational. Each side has those who go to extremes.  

I once made a comment in the political forum, I still stand by, referring to a political candidate. I am uncomfortable with extremist. I am uncomfortable with people who are not flexible, who don't see a bigger picture, who don't keep things in perspective. People who white knuckle their views as the only ones being right.  Who don't see alternatives or possibilities. 


Diplomacy.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Can I ask though please, if we consider just that one aspect of why it is right to be able to arm oneself, do you think there is a real, clear need in the modern, free USA to be able to defend against your own political / military powers-that-be?  I think to me, America I would regard as the paradigm for democracy and then I am wondering *why *is there any need to protect against _the American government / powers-that-be_?  How come that is a valid need?  I am not making a statement, only asking your opinion as I do not know enough about the situation.



I kinda have a different take on this.  I believe the inital reason it was placed in the Constitution was to keep the Govt in Check.  However the reason I believe we need to keep the 2nd amendment in tact and I will alway fight for the right to keep guns in the hands of citizens is more now for personal protection against crime.  I think people need to be able to defend themselves and familys.  Im a police officer and Ill be the first to tell you if the crap hits the fan and your becoming a victim your on your own.  Uness Im standing right next to you I wont even know about the crime until its already happened.  By the time I get there its to late.  Im not saying I wont try my hardest to get to you to try to help but,  Even the newest high tech alarm systems wont help you.  Alot of people dont know how alarms work.  Once your alarm is triggered the system sends a signial to a main answering center which can be anywhere in the world.  Then an operator much figure out what the alarm is and figure out who they need to call.  Then you got to hope they call the correct department.  If you happen to live in a city that is a common name say Cambridge, theres a Cambridge Mass, Cambridge Maryland, Cambridge Ohio, Cambridge Minnesota you got to hope they call the right city.  Ive set alarms off in houses before and its taken over 30 min for the alarm to call my dispatcher and tell them the alarm went off.  Now you have to hope the police are not to busy to answer the call.  Ive started shifts before with 20+ calls holding because there were not enough officers to answer them.  So by the time we get to you it could be over an Hour from the time the alarm goes off to the time a cop knocks on your door.  So now if the US was to ban guns only the good people would turn them in and it would in effect create a feeding frenzy for crminals because they know nobody can defend themselves.  Its far too late in our history to try to take guns away.  There are just too many guns out there now.  So Im all for evening the playing field.  Im more in favor of easing rules on concealed carry and open carry laws.


----------



## billc (Nov 1, 2011)

Keep in mind as well, what we have now as far as government goes doesn't mean it will always be like that.  We can't give up that right today, and just assume it won't be needed 100 years from now.  That would be irresponsible on our part.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 1, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Those who fear government power as Josh pointed out, see their counter parts as weak, unstable, out of touch sheep - per se.


Uh what? When did I point that out?


----------



## Carol (Nov 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Yes I understand what you and others have intimated regarding the revolutionary aspect of firearm ownership.  I think, considering the age of the constitution, that is oddly modern and relevant for today, using, exactly as you have alluded to, the Middle East and North African nations whose governments have attempted to _forceably _suppress the citizens in their right to express political choices freely.
> 
> Can I ask though please, if we consider just that one aspect of why it is right to be able to arm oneself, do you think there is a real, clear need in the modern, free USA to be able to defend against your own political / military powers-that-be?  I think to me, America I would regard as the paradigm for democracy and then I am wondering *why *is there any need to protect against _the American government / powers-that-be_?  How come that is a valid need?  I am not making a statement, only asking your opinion as I do not know enough about the situation.







I would guess the widow of this U.S. Marine would have an idea as to why that is important.

The Marine is Mr. Jose Guereña.  His death was largely ignored by the mainstream media and is a horrid travesty of justice.  He was fired upon 72 times, shot 60, by a Pima County SWAT team. His wife forced to watch him die a graphic death and denied the chance to call 911 until TWO HOURS after the shooting. 

Only to find......after all that, they had the wrong guy.  Oops.

Rest in peace, Mr. Guereña, you might still be with your wife and child today had your name been Joey Galloway.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may252011/arizona-marine-tk.php


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

If this marine would have been armed, or was and fired back, it would or make no difference, he would have been killed with the same or more bullets.  That is a point over looked my many who feel the need to protect themselves by the government by arming themselves, It is over looked the power of military technological weaponry the government has available to them in fire power and in numbers that is exponentially superior to what the average or even non average gun owner has, to say the least.  If our government wanted to, it could have wiped out all the opposing countries of the middle east in no time.  The field is not level, and that is being overlooked by many.


Some people are never accused of living an utopian fantasy.


----------



## David43515 (Nov 2, 2011)

I came across a link to this story on James Keating`s website. It`s a news story about a county Sheriff in South Carolina who is apparently fed up with dealing with violent repeat offenders. He`s telling people very frankly and directly that they should arm themselves and get a concealed carry permit.

http://www.wyff4.com/r/29638219/detail.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2011)

Carol said:


> View attachment 15640
> 
> 
> I would guess the widow of this U.S. Marine would have an idea as to why that is important.
> ...



Actually it wasnt the wrong guy. Both of his brothers homes were also had warrants done at the same time and found evidence of drugs and home invasion robberies and this guys was also suspected as helping his brothers.   The police pulled up blasted a siren in the front yard for about 15 seconds started yelling police, police, police and then when they entered the house he was crouched in the hallway in a firing position waiting for the police.   Also there was no need for paramedics to be called because the swat team had a swat medic with them and a life flight helocopter on stand-by at the time of the raid.  As soon as the house was clear they began to work on him but he was already dead.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Actually it wasnt the wrong guy. Both of his brothers homes were also had warrants done at the same time and found evidence of drugs and home invasion robberies and this guys was also suspected as helping his brothers.   The police pulled up blasted a siren in the front yard for about 15 seconds started yelling police, police, police and then when they entered the house he was crouched in the hallway in a firing position waiting for the police.   Also there was no need for paramedics to be called because the swat team had a swat medic with them and a life flight helocopter on stand-by at the time of the raid.  As soon as the house was clear they began to work on him but he was already dead.



Wow.   That's a lot more illuminating.  :asian:  Goes to show some stories that sound too bad to be true....usually aren't.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 2, 2011)

Carol said:


> Wow. That's a lot more illuminating. :asian: Goes to show some stories that sound too bad to be true....usually aren't.


It still wasnt good but it was not as it was first made out in the news.  There was an independant investigation conducted and they were cleared of wrong doing.  I actually was able to review the findings.  Alot of the information cant be released due to pending civil actions.


----------



## billc (Nov 6, 2011)

Jenna, here is another good use for the 2nd amendment...protecting property rights...the OWS meets the 2nd amendment...

http://www.breitbart.tv/shutgun-wie...f-occupyoakland-protesters-becomes-folk-hero/


----------

