*** laws : what would you accept ?

[Johan]

You're probably applauding the deaths of 20 ******** and 6 adults and in your head thinking that's what they deserve for their gung-ho shoot-'em-up capitalistic culture.

You couldn't be more wrong. I just think that the american people deserves better than 91 people ****** for no reason.

I think most of these people would be still alive if the *** law was a little stricter but, because a bunch of lunatics think that, if their government turn to a tyranny, the would be able to overthrow it with their assault rifles and because the NRA is black-mailing congressmen not to pass any ***-control bill in order to make sure that the *** industry would go on making billions, no matter how much human lives it would cost.

I think the american people deserves better than a government controlled by billionaires who care much about the profits of their industries than the well-being of most american citizens.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I think the american people deserves better than a government controlled by billionaires who care much about the profits of their industries than the well-being of most american citizens.

Sure you do...

 

[Rattrap]

Make a proposal on weapons. Don't just say ban all this because of this. I have some thoughts in mind but I will not post them...yet.

I should be clear: I'm not calling for the banning of guns. My position is that guns need to be taken down from their irrational pedestal and dealt with differently. The results of the status quo are, at least to me, entirely unacceptable.

For me, the metric goes like this: take a handgun. What are its uses? Self-defense, home-defense, target-practice, and so on. That's all fine and good by me. Now take an assault rifle. What are its uses? The above stops applying so much. Now take a bomb. Normally I avoid the slippery slope argument, but in this case, the purpose of a bomb and the purpose of an assault rifle amount to the same thing.

Frenchy, we don't want foreigners meddling in our affairs. What about that don't you get? Funny you "care" so much about us when it is so blatantly clear there is so so much you really **** about us. You're probably applauding the deaths of 20 ******** and 6 adults and in your head thinking that's what they deserve for their gung-ho shoot-'em-up capitalistic culture.

I've always found this sentiment contradictory concerning our love for the first amendment, and terribly hypocritical considering we love to fuck with everybody else's affairs.

Try this instead. The total area of England including Ireland....which they should get the fuck out of, by the way....is 94,222 sq. mi., their population is56,647,790. We have individual states bigger then that. In fact, one of the strictest set of *** laws, but not the worst, is California....the land of such socialism as Finestien, and Pelosi, has a square mileage of 158,648, and I'm guessing a larger population, no hard numbers though. Riddled with gangs, and **** cartel's and countless semi automatic rifles, no doubt, smuggled to them from Mexico, or through that sovereign land, Clinton gave to China, right up the coast from one of our largest Navel bases. Illinois, with a somewhat stricter set of *** laws, has an area of 56,343. I have no numbers on population there either. I do know though, their *** ******** rate is astronomical, and no castle doctrine....partly because of Obama, and the guy that just got arrested at an airport with a loaded *** in his bag. So compare those numbers, apples to apples, so to speak. You bitch about statistics, and fairness. Play by the rules you want others to.

I posted some information a few posts back that illustrate virtually everything in this post to be false*.
Premium Link Upgrade
Both California and Illinois are on the bottom half of the spectrum for *** ********.

I also already mentioned that the UK has one fifth the population of the US - California has 20 million less people than the UK. I'm not sure what the point of all that is anyway as long as you account for density and your numbers are per capita (fun fact: the UK has 1/5th the US population, in 1/50th the land).

*Well, not the vague stuff on **** cartels or Obama. That I'm not addressing.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I should be clear: I'm not calling for the banning of guns. My position is that guns need to be taken down from their irrational pedestal and dealt with differently. The results of the status quo are, at least to me, entirely unacceptable.

For me, the metric goes like this: take a handgun. What are its uses? Self-defense, home-defense, target-practice, and so on. That's all fine and good by me. Now take an assault rifle. What are its uses? The above stops applying so much. Now take a bomb. Normally I avoid the slippery slope argument, but in this case, the purpose of a bomb and the purpose of an assault rifle amount to the same thing.

You're going down a slippery slope. Following Dunblane and Hungerford they ****** "assault" rifles in England and Scotland, but handguns, as much as I know, are ****** in the U.K. now too. So, you want to take the "assault" rifles first, and then, and then, and then...

Make no mistake, they talk about "assault" rifles but plenty of massacres have been committed using handguns (Loughner and Cho most recently). They will take everything eventually...

I've always found this sentiment contradictory concerning our love for the first amendment, and terribly hypocritical considering we love to fuck with everybody else's affairs.

Not me. You got the wrong Yank. I'm an isolationist. Second Amendment proponent and firearm owner that I am, heck, you could even call me a pacifist. I'm sick and freaking tired of America "policing" the world. Bring all our troops home - all of them. Sure, we have some financial interests in certain places but this **** is ridiculous what we're doing as a government. So, no, my previous opinion on foreigners talking **** about my rights as an American remain.

 

[eponymous]

Consider the countries of Germany, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are fairly industrialized nations with liberal democratic institutions, a mostly Christian heritage, free markets and their combined population is roughly equivalent to the U.S.. In short, they're a lot like us.

In 2009 (or, in some cases, 2008*), these countries had a combined total of 709 *** Homicides. The U.S. had 9,146.

Americans are not more homicidal by nature. These countries have *** laws that make sense.

And since the 2nd Amendment is often tossed around in these types of discussions, let's just refresh our memories as to what it actually says:

"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."**

In modern terms, State Militia's are what we now call the National Guard. And in the late 18th Century, they didn't have active members. Militia's formed on an ad hoc basis in response to domestic emergencies, and when someone was called to duty, they were expected to bring their own ***.

We don't do things this way anymore. I'm not saying guns should be ******, but we shouldn't give guns out like candy based solely on an historical anachronism, especially when the first thing that is said about Militia's in the text itself is that they should be "well regulated."

* Depending on when the most recent statistics are available. However, for countries whose 2009 stats are not available, their 2008 totals bear no substantial difference to prior years.
** This is the version as ****** by Congress. The version circulated to the States and ratified by them for final passage of the Bill of Rights - and the version certified by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson - read:

"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."

 

[eponymous]

If the people who do the *** inspections and *** licence renewals are democrats, there is no possibility and absolutely no reason to trust them, they like scum and they **** the second amendment, so screw the Obama administration and his bunch of fucking minions.

Now who's profiling?

 

[eponymous]

You're going down a slippery slope. Following Dunblane and Hungerford they ****** "assault" rifles in England and Scotland, but handguns, as much as I know, are ****** in the U.K. now too. So, you want to take the "assault" rifles first, and then, and then, and then...

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, but it's worth pointing out that the UK's rate of *** homicides is substantially lower than that of the U.S.

Make no mistake, they talk about "assault" rifles but plenty of massacres have been committed using handguns (Loughner and Cho most recently). They will take everything eventually...

This is why I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Handguns are used to commit most *******, but *** rights supporters cite the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense in protecting handguns from being regulated. Okay, but what does anyone need with an assault weapon, especially fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles? They aren't practical for self-defense, and even the most reasonable person can admit these weapons go way beyond the intention of the 2nd Amendment. It's at this point that the slippery slope argument is made. It isn't an attempt to prevent überguns from being ****** or regulated, it's an attempt to prevent any kind of *** legislation whatsoever.

 

[eponymous]

...You're probably applauding the deaths of 20 ******** and 6 adults and in your head thinking that's what they deserve for their gung-ho shoot-'em-up capitalistic culture.

You couldn't be more wrong...I think the american people deserves better than a government controlled by billionaires who care much about the profits of their industries than the well-being of most american citizens.

Sure you do...

What reason do you have to doubt him?

You know, impugning someone's character is a pretty sure sign you just aren't willing to engage on the issues.

Not to mention the fact that, for all the ruckus created by law abiding *** rights supporters who protest (and reasonably so) being lumped in with mentally deranged people and common thugs simply because they believe in their right to own guns, one would think that folks like yourself would be less likely to accuse someone else of being happy over the innocent deaths of others.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, but it's worth pointing out that the UK's rate of *** homicides is substantially lower than that of the U.S.




This is why I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Handguns are used to commit most *******, but *** rights supporters cite the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense in protecting handguns from being regulated. Okay, but what does anyone need with an assault weapon, especially fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles? They aren't practical for self-defense, and even the most reasonable person can admit these weapons go way beyond the intention of the 2nd Amendment. It's at this point that the slippery slope argument is made. It isn't an attempt to prevent überguns from being ****** or regulated, it's an attempt to prevent any kind of *** legislation whatsoever.

How many ******* that occur every day in America are used with an "assault" rifle? Answer that and you answer your own question.

It just rarely, rarely happens. I might also add that a .223 round is not a huge round. A 12 gauge shotgun round is far more likely to destroy someone. Heck a .45 (handgun) round is bigger and can inflict more damage.

What reason do you have to doubt him?

You know, impugning someone's character is a pretty sure sign you just aren't willing to engage on the issues.

Not to mention the fact that, for all the ruckus created by law abiding *** rights supporters who protest (and reasonably so) being lumped in with mentally deranged people and common thugs simply because they believe in their right to own guns, one would think that folks like yourself would be less likely to accuse someone else of being happy over the innocent deaths of others.

Johan does nothing but spout off anti-American rhetoric on here. He hates our capitalistic, traditional values-based culture and nation. He'd rather we were a larger, worse version of France. Callin' a spade a spade...

 

[Rey C.]

This is why I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Handguns are used to commit most *******, but *** rights supporters cite the 2nd Amendment and the right to self-defense in protecting handguns from being regulated. Okay, but what does anyone need with an assault weapon, especially fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles? They aren't practical for self-defense, and even the most reasonable person can admit these weapons go way beyond the intention of the 2nd Amendment. It's at this point that the slippery slope argument is made. It isn't an attempt to prevent überguns from being ****** or regulated, it's an attempt to prevent any kind of *** legislation whatsoever.

You make some good points. But let's look at what the data tells us. As far as full autos go, I *believe* that the last legally owned full auto used to commit a crime in the U.S. was a ****** committed by a rogue FBI agent... 15-20 years ago? I may be wrong, but I believe that is accurate. In any case, crimes committed with those weapons is extremely rare because they are so incredibly pricey and the license procedure is out of this world with what you have to go through. No civilian in the U.S. can even buy one made after 1986. There just aren't that many of them in circulation and the ATF (and local police agencies) knows where each and every one of them is at any given time. So talking about the dangers posed by full autos is something of a strawman, if you don't mind me saying so. The same can almost be said about these dreaded "assault weapons". Now, they do look mean and menacing. But what are they? They're just like any other semi-automatic rifle or carbine with a detachable magazine. There really is nothing special or extra dangerous about them apart from that. They tend to fire medium power cartridges, which are actually less deadly than the ones fired by the average .30 caliber deer rifle. And yes, you can hunt with them, as long as the cartridge meets the minimum for your particular state and the magazine is of the appropriate size. When I first moved back here, I hunted for an entire season with an AK with a 5 round mag. It was a great brush *** because the barrel was relatively short and the round was ideal for short range hunting in heavy brush. Not so much with AK variants, but there are a LOT of people who hunt with the SKS (same 7.62x39mm/.30 caliber round as the AK series). But going back to the stats, and not to discount the high profile shootings that do occur with these weapons, as you accurately pointed out, most *** crimes and shooting deaths occur with handguns... not so called "assault weapons" and most certainly not full automatics.

Much of the time, when something bad does happen, these weapons get played up by the media much like when someone gets eaten by a Great White shark and people begin to panic and stay out of the coastal waters. Statistically, your chances of getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery are probably about the same as getting swallowed by Jaws... or getting shot by someone with an AK or AR.

IMO, this muddies the waters. As I said, I've been in the NRA for a very long time. And while I've recently found myself drifting away from the organization (because of its political associations with retarded bomb throwers like Sarah P@lin, Michele Bachmann and other half-wit fringe lunatics), I still believe in the right to (responsibly) own a firearm. What I want to see is people from both sides of the issue constructively working together to find real and practical solutions to getting firearms out of the hands of criminals and people with mental issues. No one is really addressing this though - not really. But if all that we do is create strawmen and debate about things that are low on the pareto chart, we'll never accomplish anything meaningful. Sadly, I believe that what we see on this board is a reflection of what we'll see in Congress as this issue plays out. Just like the health care debate devolved into a shouting match between extremist loons on both sides (and yielded a bad law that only reformed insurance and not health care), I'm sure this one will also only touch on the things that are "feel good" or "looks good on paper"... and won't accomplish a damn thing in reality. I have full confidence in our elected government officials to once again screw the pooch. And I have full confidence in the American people to not be able to analyze what the true root causes of the issue are. I guess I should be happy that people generally can't/don't/won't do that... or I'd be out of a job.

I expect so little from politicians... and they seldom disappoint.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I'm glad that I'm a gunslinger. Had I been at that school I would have been carrying concealed , whether as an employee or a visitor. I guarantee you that had I been there, there would not have been as many ******** and staff ******** that day. I would have easily taken that scumbag out.

But, for those of you who **** firearms, those of you who are afraid of firearms, for those of you who think guns are the problem and that they need to be eradicated from society.. you're fooling yourselves if you think the gangs, the criminals, the wackos and, and anyone else who is a misfit in society are going to abide by the law that says NO GUNS ALLOWED. So, you might as well stick your head in the sand and kiss your sissy asses good-bye.

But not me. I will NEVER surrender my firearms. I may die trying, but if I do die, so be it. I wouldn't want to live in a society where only the likes of the Presidents, the Senators, the Mayors, and the Hollywood Elite are allowed to own a *** for their own protection, but the common man and woman cannot.

Any of you loud-mouth sissies in here want to take my guns? Come try it.

 

[Rey C.]

^^^ See, this is what I'm talking about with respect to extremist loons who only serve to muddy the waters when people are trying to have an intelligent discussion. Ol' Yosemite Sam up there would have gone in (illegally carrying his firearm on school property) and saved everybody. He can also leap over tall buildings in a single try.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

^^^ See, this is what I'm talking about with respect to extremist loons who only serve to muddy the waters when people are trying to have an intelligent discussion. Ol' Yosemite Sam up there would have gone in (illegally carrying his firearm on school property) and saved everybody. He can also leap over tall buildings in a single try.

Well ya know dude....sometimes you make a judgement call. He knows he's breaking the law, but it's not so he can break the law, it's because he knows this is a scarey world, and if you want to survive, you need to be prepared. Personally, I would rather be judged by 12, the carried by 6.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I'm not going to get into this carrying into '*** Free' zones and whatnot, but you guys should read up on the Luby's Massacre regarding a future Texas representative who was there:

Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen in 1991 when the Luby's massacre commenced. The gunman shot 50 people and ****** 23, including Hupp's parents. Hupp later expressed regret about deciding to remove her *** from her purse and lock it in her car lest she risk possibly running afoul of the state's concealed weapons laws; during the shootings, she reached for her weapon but then remembered that it was "a hundred feet away in my car."[4] Her ******, Al Gratia, tried to rush the gunman and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her ******, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Actually however, her ****** went to her mortally-wounded husband's aid and was then shot in the head.
As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that if there had been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have ******** the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.[5] She testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.[6] The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush.[7]

Premium Link Upgrade

Premium Link Upgrade

 

[DOA82]

I'm glad that I'm a gunslinger. Had I been at that school I would have been carrying concealed , whether as an employee or a visitor. I guarantee you that had I been there, there would not have been as many ******** and staff ******** that day. I would have easily taken that scumbag out.

"If I was on that plane with my ****, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of ***** in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry."

Mark Wahlberg - He said said the brand of dumb **** and no one took him to serious either.

 

[eponymous]

How many ******* that occur every day in America are used with an "assault" rifle? Answer that and you answer your own question.

It just rarely, rarely happens. I might also add that a .223 round is not a huge round. A 12 gauge shotgun round is far more likely to destroy someone. Heck a .45 (handgun) round is bigger and can inflict more damage.

I really wasn't asking a question. I was arguing that the slippery slope argument is invalid, or in any case isn't used to counter efforts at curtailing assault weapons, but rather to resist any kind of regulation whatsoever. There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies, viz., they circumvent the subject rather than address it.

I did ask, albeit rhetorically, what anyone could possibly need an assault weapon for when they are impractical for hunting and self-defense. But even if that was a question that needed answering, neither of your responses (to wit, that they are "rarely, rarely" used to commit ******, and some ammunition is less deadly than others) provide an answer to that question.

Johan does nothing but spout off anti-American rhetoric on here. He hates our capitalistic, traditional values-based culture and nation. He'd rather we were a larger, worse version of France. Callin' a spade a spade...

No, you're denigrating someone else's beliefs and attributing to them a ghastly character that revels in the deaths of others because it fills a need they supposedly have to **** you and what you stand for.

But my real point is that, even if it were true, saying it is counter-productive. I'm sure you don't appreciate being called a mentally deranged, homicidal *** nut with no respect for human life, which is how radicals on the left would label you based solely on a belief of yours with which they disagree. So why stoop to that level and accuse someone of being glad that ******** are dead?

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I really wasn't asking a question. I was arguing that the slippery slope argument is invalid, or in any case isn't used to counter efforts at curtailing assault weapons, but rather to resist any kind of regulation whatsoever. There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies, viz., they circumvent the subject rather than address it.

It is a slippery slope and Dunblane and Hungerford are perfect examples of this. And no, I'm not using that to curtail any sort of regulation. Besides the tons of laws already on the books I even said last page I had ideas about things we can do to at the very least see less of these massacres.

Besides that you're all over the place with your posts. It's quite simple: what will banning AR's (which are not full-auto as incorrectly implied earlier) or similar weapons really do when the vast majority of ******* - even mass ******* (remember, Cho, who ******** 30, did with a couple handguns, not an "assault" rifle) - are done so with with handguns.

I did ask, albeit rhetorically, what anyone could possibly need an assault weapon for when they are impractical for hunting and self-defense. But even if that was a question that needed answering, neither of your responses (to wit, that they are "rarely, rarely" used to commit ******, and some ammunition is less deadly than others) provide an answer to that question.

I've never owned or even shot an "assault" rifle, but my friend is in the process of having one built for him right now by his ****** who has an FFL. Rey (posted just above) made it quite simple why he hunts with one (yes, they are used for hunting, watch the Sportsman Channel some time if you don't believe me); he put it in layman's terms for you.

But my real point is that, even if it were true, saying it is counter-productive. I'm sure you don't appreciate being called a mentally deranged, homicidal *** nut with no respect for human life, which is how radicals on the left would label you based solely on a belief of yours with which they disagree. So why stoop to that level and accuse someone of being glad that ******** are dead?

Because Johan has a history here and I've been here for quite a bit of that history. Johan has a history of bashing America and Americans and I get sick of it sometimes. Insult to injury he thinks he is some authority figure on what happens on this side of the Pond and in America in general when most of the time he has no clue.

 

[eponymous]

...talking about the dangers posed by full autos is something of a strawman, if you don't mind me saying so. The same can almost be said about these dreaded "assault weapons"...

Well said, but I don't agree that a discussion about whether to ban assault weapons is a straw man argument. They may be used less to commit violent crimes, they may even be used substantially less, but they still can be so used, and it doesn't change the fact that many of these weapons have no practical uses. I venture to affirm that if someone you loved were ****** with such a weapon, you wouldn't be at all consoled that the chances were extremely low that it would happen. Not to mention the fact that such powerful firepower would likely **** many people, not simply one or two.

Also, by this same logic, we would have no compelling reason to ban military grade explosives or chemical or biological weapons. The fact that there cannot be any practical uses for them outweighs the inherent risk in their being used even once.

...Much of the time, when something bad does happen, these weapons get played up by the media much like when someone gets eaten by a Great White shark and people begin to panic and stay out of the coastal waters. Statistically, your chances of getting struck by lightning or winning the lottery are probably about the same as getting swallowed by Jaws... or getting shot by someone with an AK or AR.

IMO, this muddies the waters...

My point about assault weapons in general is that it should be easy for people on both sides to find common ground here. Even if the possibility of people being ****** by an assault weapon is infinitesimal, it's still larger than 0, which are the chances that many of these weapons could have practical value.

I agree that the longer the debate centers on things of this nature, the less likely we are to make any progress addressing the real problems. But we have to find common ground somewhere.

 

[eponymous]

I'm glad that I'm a gunslinger. Had I been at that school I would have been carrying concealed , whether as an employee or a visitor. I guarantee you that had I been there, there would not have been as many ******** and staff ******** that day. I would have easily taken that scumbag out.

But, for those of you who **** firearms, those of you who are afraid of firearms, for those of you who think guns are the problem and that they need to be eradicated from society.. you're fooling yourselves if you think the gangs, the criminals, the wackos and, and anyone else who is a misfit in society are going to abide by the law that says NO GUNS ALLOWED. So, you might as well stick your head in the sand and kiss your sissy asses good-bye.

But not me. I will NEVER surrender my firearms. I may die trying, but if I do die, so be it. I wouldn't want to live in a society where only the likes of the Presidents, the Senators, the Mayors, and the Hollywood Elite are allowed to own a *** for their own protection, but the common man and woman cannot.

Any of you loud-mouth sissies in here want to take my guns? Come try it.

I may only have been here a short time, but it's clear to me that no one here believes you're a hero. No one believes you have one iota of courage. No one believes you even have convictions, only a desire to propagate hatred, intolerance and lies.

And no one, absolutely no one, is afraid of you.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Well said, but I don't agree that a discussion about whether to ban assault weapons is a straw man argument. They may be used less to commit violent crimes, they may even be used substantially less, but they still can be so used, and it doesn't change the fact that many of these weapons have no practical uses. I venture to affirm that if someone you loved were ****** with such a weapon, you wouldn't be at all consoled that the chances were extremely low that it would happen. Not to mention the fact that such powerful firepower would likely **** many people, not simply one or two. .

Good grief.