Gun banning and fast and furious...

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steve]

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]

Ballen 0351 you asked what I have against such weapons.

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]

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]

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]

Why would she be upset by a christmas card?

 

[billc]

The shootout from L.A...

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

 

[billc]

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]

Map of the area around the Bank of America and events during the shoot-out.​

On the morning of Feb. 28, 1997, after months of preparation, including extensive reconnoitering of their intended target—the Bank of America branch on Laurel Canyon Boulevard—Phillips and Mătăsăreanu loaded five rifles and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines into the trunk of their vehicle: two modified Romanian AIM[SUP][disambiguation needed ][/SUP] assault rifles, an AK-47 style rifle, and one modified Norinco Type 56 S-1, a semi automatic HK91 and a modified Bushmaster XM15 E2S. Phillips carried one 9mm Beretta Model 92F INOX.[SUP][14][/SUP] They wore their 18 kilogram (40 pounds) full-suit body armor, which Phillips had stitched together, as well as metal trauma plates to protect vital organs, and they tookphenobarbital to calm their nerves.[SUP][15][/SUP]

 

[JohnEdward]

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]

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]

Dr. Sheldon Cooper...is that you?

 

[billc]

Hmmm...

Mătăsăreanu 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 Mătăsăreanu'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]

Ballen 0351 you asked what I have against such weapons.



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.

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]

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]

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]

Dr. Sheldon Cooper...is that you?

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