Gun banning and fast and furious...

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[JohnEdward]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.