Printable View
The problem is that they can't legislate just for you. They need to figure out the statistics and take their best shot at keeping as many weapons out of the wrong hands while (we hope) letting them remain in the right hands. While gun violence is high, they'll err on the side against us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
Unfortunately, it falls to us to change that calculus.
j
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
You've illustrated my point better than I could have ever hoped to describe it. :D
Jim, you've got your work cut out for you. I'm considering adding my voice to John's and Tim's, only louder. ;)
Seriously gentlemen, I was only trying to illustrate the importance of understanding the other perspective.
If you want me to play the game the pointless way;
1) I can guarantee you 100% that neither the recent ruling nor what you advocate will lower the number of illegal guns in the District.
2) Yes, I fully intend to let my kids run around in their little yard and the terrific parks on Capitol Hill. It's a great neighbourhood for kids. - Every single house in my current neighbourhood in Africa has electric fencing and some combination of barbed wire and vicious guard dogs. The US ain't got nuthin on southern Africa when it comes to prolific violent crime. And I have it easy here - check out the stats for Johannesburg.
Sarcasism alert!!!
Pudu, Areyou suggesting that we here in the US may not have the most violent gun totingest society in the world? gosh if I listened to the news I would never know that. every day we are told that we are the most violent country with more crime than anyone else, and this incorrect impression is believed by the world at large.
I bet even your neighbors think they live safer than the people of LA.
You bet correctly sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
pretty sure shooting a little kid is already illegal whether guns are banned or not. clearly, the person that did this was not concerned about anti-murder laws... why the hell would they care about anti-gun laws? which one is worth a nickel in the pen, and which one gets them a nice syringe full of high octane barbituates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Which just goes to prove that it is how the media represents us to the world not how we actually are as a culture or what we do that determins the worlds opinion of us.
"Screwing up" in my neighbourhood likely means someone is dead - and when it's an innocent little girl playing in her front yard it makes you want to do anything to prevent that sort of thing happening, not just punish someone who does it.
Pudu
Sir,
I have handled firearms for well over forty years. I have owned guns for almost that long. I have loaded my own ammunition for twenty years. I used to shoot seven to eight pounds of powder per year. That Sir, is an average of over fifty rounds a week.
I have held a Concealed Carry Permit for (I think) fourteen years. In all that time and through all that powder (not counting the Factory ammunition I have shot) I have NEVER injured anyone. I have never had an accident and I have never "Screwed Up." I have trained a lot in gun safety and aside from guns, I am probably the most safety minded person you will run across, for a while.
"Screwing Up" is another way to say "They DIDN'T know what they were doing and they had no business with a gun!" Guns are not to be played with and they are not for making you feel "Macho."
I am a huge supporter of the Second Amendment. But the ownership of a gun caries an awsome responsibility. Every right carries more responsibilities than the freedom the right grants you.
Sure, I have the RIGHT to own a gun. BUT, I have the responsibility to keep it out of unauthorized hands. I have the responsibility to keep it in proper working order. I have the responsibility to handle it in a safe and prudent manner. I have the responsibility to ALWAYS know where it is. I have the responsibility to never and I mean NEVER, when I am carrying it, to let my temper get the best of me. I can't respond to insults as I might like. I have to walk away from a situation that potentially might escalate into violence. My Permit grants me ONE right, the right to Carry Concealed. It carries many responsibilities and restrictions.
TRAINING is the word. You have the right to own a gun, but you also have the responsibility to be properly trained, not only in how it works, but how to SAFELY handle it.
A gun is not malicious. It doesn't have a will. It is a tool...a highly specialized tool and it is entirely subject to the will of it's possessor.
Regards,
Jeeter
But would the common people have the skills? Seriously, how many people in the US know what it means for a machine gun to fire from the open bolt position? How many of them could emplace and lay a howitzer?
I hate the fact that a law abiding person has to justify owning a weapon. I've owned weapons in the past and the only thing I posed a danger to was paper and watermelon (.44 mag does beautiful things to a watermelon).
Cars are way more dangerous than guns and we let pretty much everyone have one of those.
Artilleryo,
My training and experience is in a whole different area than yours. I would be lost trying to "make a Howitzer go."
I am in no way saying a private citizen should have to justify a need for a gun. NO WAY! The fact that the Constitution recognizes that I have a right ought to be good enough for anyone. It is my firmly held belief that with that right, goes heavy responsibility.
I also believe my Driver's License carries an awesome responsibility as well.
Regards,
Jeeter
[Edit]
And I admit that a .44 Magnum can be a lot of fun. I have owned around eight in the last twenty years. It is my favorite caliber.
[Another Edit]
I just counted them up. It is six .44 Magnums and two .44 Specials.
The idea of a bunch of civilians getting into the armory is more funny than scary. An M-16/M-4 is a pretty simple piece of weaponry. Besides, they are crappy weapons anyway. If they can manage to get more than about 30 rounds out without a stovepipe, I'd like to know how they managed.
I think we are pretty much in agreement here though. The government has no reason to fear weapons in the hands of peaceful people. Violent sh**bags will always find ways to kill people.
From a larger perspective, Americans have been lulled into a sense of peace because no one has threatened our borders in a very long time. But it may not always be that way. As a military leader, I find it consoling knowing that invaders will have to deal with armed, pissed off rednecks in addition to the regular military units.
+100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
John P.
Artilleryo, you must have some crap m16's laying around. My dad had an ar15 built for him a few months ago which I had the pleasure of shooting, and I can assure you that it sailed through at least 100 rounds with ease. Of course I was jealous and told him I'd be stealing it straight away:roflmao
To stay on topic, I completely agree with the preceding 4 posts!
I was hoping the responsibility word would come up. I never hear the word "right" without "responsibility" immediately springing into my head. I'd like to think that, by these judges ruling in favour of individual rights, what they are really saying is "we think our people are responsible enough to handle it".
Geez, I sound like my father! What was it Mark Twain said? "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
James.
There are AR-15's and there are M-16's. Identical in nearly all ways except the three round burst setting and the fact that the AR-15 wasn't made by the lowest bidder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
I may be exaggerating a bit. However, I don't know many people who have been in firefights with the M-16/M-4 who haven't had to stop and clear at least one jam.
With a few minor changes, it could be the weapon it's supposed to be. It could be redesigned so the dust cover on the ejector port is open only when a round is actually being ejected. The bolt could also be gas driven in both directions. That should give more consistent speed to the bolt as it opens.
:HJ most of the problems I've had with the Stoner platform tend to stem from the fact that it shits where it eats, so to speak, e.g. direct impingement is WAY WAY WAY dirtier than a nice short-stroke piston. you can get some pretty nice aftermarket piston conversion kits, they're great!Quote:
Originally Posted by artilleryo
Careful about deriding the ability of the common man to acquire difficult skills quickly. Until I had the desire to learn I didn't know a Double Duck from a Boker, or even how to hold a razor, its didn't take long for me to learn though. Or to stay on topic I have a friend who is a New Yorker born and bred, she had never touched a gun until a few months ago, she passed her Concealed Pistol Certification just this weekend, and I would trust her to be able to handle any pistol in my collection with ease and competence. Anyone who has the desire or need can rapidly acquire the skills and knowledge so their general lack should never be justification for denying anyone anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by artilleryo
I'm pretty sure a person with average intelligence could figure out a machine gun or make a howitzer do more or less what it's supposed to do. I love my soldiers, but some of them aren't exactly the most complicated tools in the shed.
The risks for blowing a turn on the learning curve are pretty high though.
My dislike for the M-16 will be pretty moot soon anyway. I'm getting out of the reserves shortly. The work-guard-family balance is getting too hard to maintain.
I'll admit, I haven't read the whole thread, or its responses, as mine is the only one I care about. :roflmao Thing is, every other right in the Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL right. Why not the Second? People want to parse it and make it say what they want it to say, but the bottom line is that it's just as essential and individual as the others. To all you folks who support abrogation of the Second amendment, what right do you think guarantees all the others? It ain't the Congress, and it damn sure isn't every other country who would think to invade us, but they know about 2 out of every 3 Americans is armed, or has access to a weapon. Frankly, that's the only thing our government is still afraid of, since they know that due to 40 years of Dimocratic policies ( agreed to by the Repukelicans) Americans aren't smart enough to outthink them. Unfortunately, this lack of critical thinking and personal responsibility, is the reason the right is under attack in the first place. Whatever happened to fistfights?
I actually saw with my own eyes just about a year ago several US issued M-16s and a case of hand grenades that were being sold on the black market.Quote:
You would know better than I, but I assume that weapons are less frequently stolen from the armed forces armouries than from peoples' bedrooms. Also I suspect there are few six year olds rooting around the armouries and magazines. The point being that the "government's weapon" are usually handled with a very high degree of responsibility and care. If it could be guaranteed that every gun owner would do the same I suspect the 2nd amendment would be a non-issue.
It happens more than you might think.
Yet people drive every day without a license, or insurance, or tags, or common sense for that matter... The problem isn't the car, It's the owner. I've yet to hear of someone suing Ford because the drunk who ran over their grandmother was driving a mustang...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
There are 3 major reasons an individual should/could be allowed to have these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
The first, and probably least substantial one is because they can be used for recreational purposes, safely and without harming anyone. Firing a full auto is actually a lot of fun.
Secondly, The threat of overwhelming force will often deter attackers from engaging. If you are thinking of invading a home, and you have to wonder who's inside, and how much force are they going to respond with, you might think twice.
And Third, Open revolt against the government does happen, the French revolution, the American Revolution, It's happened throughout history, and is a possibility in the future if government encroaches into the personal liberties of it's people.
People should not fear their government, the government should fear it's people. This is what keeps a government honest.
No it should not happen, and it's unlikely, but our founding fathers saw the necessity, and wanted the option to remain there should the government ever become a threat to the people.
You ask why we would own a gun unless it was for shooting people...
I own several handguns, rifles, shotguns, I have a bow and arrow, and I'm actively on the lookout for a reasonably priced cannon as well.
Yet I have no intention of shooting people with them.
I keep a loaded handgun within reach 90% of the time, this is simply a safety measure. I have had home invaders try to force entry into my home. They failed.
I have had 2 other incidents where guns were pointed at me, and threats were made, I believe I am alive today, and not a statistic because I was armed and willing to defend myself.
In all 3 cases I'm certain the agressor would have never tried me had they believed me armed. I looked like an easy target, and that was their mistake.
And FYI I didn't have to fire a shot. As soon as I drew my weapon, they turned tail and ran.
Criminals fear a well armed victim. I worked as a nurse in a state prison, and the inmates would try to intimidate me. Some would go as far as making threats. My answer was always the same...
"I'm going to take your word on that, These officers here heard you say it, and just to make sure we have an understanding... If I ever see you on the street, I'm going to assume you are there to make good on your threat. And seeing as you are a convicted felon with a violent history, I will shoot you down where you stand. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."
My ability and willingness to defend myself, is important to me, and has kept me safe so far.
Frankly this to me is the perfect argument for concealed carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
In modern society, with the number of gangbangers increasing, a poor economy, and the disturbing trend that seems to have started with Columbine, I think responsible well trained gunowners should carry concealed weapons more. I'm not advocating everybody to carry a gun, but a well trained individual with a firearm could potentially stop a rampage before it becomes a massacre.
That's real gun control, knowing and respecting your weapom, and hitting your target every time.
If the majority of upstanding community members, your pillars of the community, retired police and firefighters, business owners, and accountants...
If those people recieved proper training, (and passed all their background checks of course) and were allowed or even encouraged to carry concealed weapons, criminals would fear us.
They might think twice if they walk into a room and realise that probably every third person here has a gun hidden on them. If they don't think twice, they would most likely end up a statistic.
A couple of months ago I saw something about a recent murder at a women's dress shop, the guy walked in with I think it was an AK47? herded everybody to the back room, and killed them all. He didn't care that he was killing unarmed women... I can't say that those women would be alive today if they had been armed, but at least they would have had a fighting chance.
a single assailant can't keep his eyes on everyone in the store, until he has them all herded together. In that time, there might be a chance to fight. Frankly even if it's a slim chance, I want that chance. I'd rather die fighting than be executed in a back room.:gth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
I know I'm double posting, but this part deserves to be addressed all by itself.
Responsibility
"Every right implies a responsibility"Quote:
re·spon·si·bil·i·ty Audio Help (rĭ-spŏn'sə-bĭl'ĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. re·spon·si·bil·i·ties
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
- <LI minmax_bound="true">The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
- Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.
responsibility
noun1. the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr [syn: duty] 2. the proper sphere or extent of your activities; "it was his province to take care of himself" [syn: province] 3. a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for something or being responsible for one's conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility" [ant: irresponsibility]
We have the right to free speech, we have the responsibility to not yell fire in a crowded theatre.
The second ammendment gives us the right to protect ourselves, it is the right that bears the burden of protecting all of the other rights and duties we as a free people hold.
Not only do we have a right to bear arms, but we have the responsibility to protect ourselves out families and our community.
Quote:
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
Many of you will say the police are here to protect us, they hold that responsibility.
They do not, and can not protect you. If they respond at all you are lucky, if they arrive in time to save your life, wonderful. But to place your life in the hands of a small group of outnumbered overworked and overstretched officers is foolish at best.
The police spend most of their time investigating and gathering evidence after the crime has been committed. They can not be everywhere at once, and I really don't think your attacker is going to set up an appointment so that you can arrange for police protection before hand.
I've stated before that the police are not here to protect us, here's the proof.
The police have no legal obligation to protect you.
Quote:
Warren v. District of Columbia - 1981 - Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.
When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
Quote:
1982 -A husband and wife who were assaulted in a Laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn.Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252
The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.
911 doesn't even have to respond...Quote:
1975 - Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Have you ever called 911 and been put on hold?Quote:
04/08/2006 - Michigan - A 5-year-old boy called 911 to report that his mother had collapsed in their apartment, but an operator told him he should not be playing on the phone, and she died before help arrived.
The family of Sherrill Turner, 46, does not know whether a swifter response could have saved her life, but relatives want to know why the operator apparently treated the call as if it were a prank.
Police said the 911 response was under investigation.
Turner's son, Robert, placed two calls to 911 after his mother collapsed Feb. 20 on the kitchen floor. During one of the calls, an operator said: "You shouldn't be playing on the phone."
In a tape of the call, parts of which were broadcast by Detroit-area television stations, the operator said: "Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you gonna be in trouble."
In an audio of the tape played on TV, some of what the boy says is unintelligible.
Delaina Patterson, the eldest of Turner's 10 children, said police did not arrive until three hours later. She said only Robert and his mother were home at the time.
Detroit police spokesman James Tate said it was at least an hour before authorities arrived, but he said he did not have details. By that time, the boy's mother had died, he said.
"The operator may have believed he was playing on the phone," Tate said.
The 911 operator remains on the job amid the investigation, Tate said.
Now that the supreme court has ruled in favor of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, I would like to know where in the second amendment it says this only applies to in our own homes...:thinking:
Sir,Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
your attitude towards firearms is commendable.
I take the same approach towards motorbikes. When I got my bike I immediately completed a safe driver course. I always ride, not only with a helmet, but with proper footwear, gloves, and leathers. I've driven across North America a couple of times on my bike without incident. When I see young guys spend ten minutes writing a learners exam and then running out to purchase something with a better thrust to weight ratio than the Space Shuttle, using it to drag one another and practice wheelies on public streets - it drives me crazy. They are giving me a bad name, driving up my insurance rates, driving up the price of helmets, bikes, and safety equipment (through pointless lawsuits). I think if people want the advantages of riding a bike but are unprepared to accept the responsibilities of doing so - well too bad for them. Licensing and registration exist, but I think proper mandatory training would go a long way to fixing the problem, as would restricting the kind of bike you can ride on a learner's permit. It won't eliminate it but I believe it will help. And it doesn't impair my enjoyment because I already use safe riding practices - if it had been mandatory it wouldn't have affected my attitude or my respect towards riding. Just because there will always be some wheelieing idiot on the streets doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
I know that my actions and attitude does affect others in this regard, just as theirs affects me. We don't live in isolation from one another.
If I were a responsible gun owner it would drive me equally crazy to see people treating firearms with undo respect and wisdom. Surely the people who go out and buy a hand gun, who have no training in handling one, and leave it lying in their underwear drawer where kids can mess around with them unsupervised, or from where a burglar could very easily make off with it when no one is home to threaten him with it - surely these people, besides creating most of the societal problems with guns, are also making the lives of responsible gun owners more difficult.
If we can all agree that approaching firearms with a degree of respect is the key to safety, why is registration and training so onerous? There will always be people who disregard the rules of our society. We can't legislate against them, as has been pointed out above. We can however make it harder for them to do so without preventing people who take gun ownership seriously from enjoying their passion and desire for self defense.
It is obviously a regional issue. I suspect the gun crime rate in Wyoming is not the problem that it is on the east coast. Shouldn't cities affected by the problem be allowed to address it in this manner. Starting in 1993, when the Brady law went into effect gun crime stats decreased every year. There are solutions to these problems as long as it is approached in good faith and with a reasonable attitude by everyone - as an example, in my opinion it would be silly for anyone with military experience using firearms to take more training when purchasing their own weapon.
The thing in this thread seems to be to quote my earlier post, so let me do that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Registration is ornerous because there is no purpose to it. It will neigther aid the owner in getting a stolen gun back, nor modify in the least any unsafe practices that person has with regards to guns. The only possible purpose for the Government knowing where every gun is is so that upon their desire they can come and take them. As for mandatory training, I addressed the abusive limiting way it is possible for a tyranical government to use that to infringe on the rights of ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
I will compromise. Respect the constitution and my rights to not be infringed in my desire to own a gun, and I'll allow you to live in the US. Thats all there is to it. When one side wants Guns and the other side specifically wants to keep them from owning them, there can be no compromise. Thanks to the foresight of the founders of this Nation there is no need to.
pudu-> which brady laws are you referring to? the waiting period or the assault weapons ban? both are frequently referred to by that name, not sure which you mean.
Not sure where you got your information from (I hope not from Bowling for Columbine), but that NRA meeting was planned way ahead of the Columbine massacre. If anyone is to blame is Eric and Dylan for shooting up the school right before an already planned NRA event. In fact, due to the tragedy at Columbine, the NRA canceled most of their events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
emphasis mineQuote:
The NRA scaled back its long-planned Denver convention after the April 20 bullet-and-bomb rampage by Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, that left 15 people, including the two shooters, dead. But the group refused a request by Denver Mayor Wellington Webb to cancel the meeting entirely.
CNN - NRA comes to town on heels of Colorado school massacre - April 30, 1999
I can't remember which documentary it was that I watched, it may have even been a video produced by the NRA, so what I'm going to say next is up to you to decide.
The video said that the only reason they continued with the meeting is because it was an executive annual meeting which was mandatory because of the NRAs "lobby" status. Or something like that.
I'm not and never have been an NRA member. I have mixed emotions about them. But the least you could do if you're going to imply that they were being insensitive for arriving shortly after Columbine is at the very least disclose the fact that they had that meeting planned long beforehand and it wasn't in response to Columbine.
Your absolutely right. Crimes involving assault weapons obviously decreased, but gun crimes overall decreased as well, so both I guess. I don't know much about assault weapons except that the police forces aren't big fans of people using them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
Riiiiiiiiight. :hmmm:
I think it's best if we agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that, at least as far as SRP is concerned.
:OTcrimes involving assault weapons did NOT decrease during 94-04. And they didn't go up after 2004. They were less than 1% of shootings to begin with, and less than 1% of shootings during and after. The AWB was the most flawed piece of legislation I've ever seen, apart from the Bridge to Nowhere in ALaska. The AWB did not ban machine guns or assault RIFLES, it made up a new category of weapons based ENTIRELY on cosmetic features and nothing more. All it accomplished was to raise magazine prices for law abiding citizens, and force a bunch of law abiding AR15 owners to file their bayonet lugs off. That's it. [/rant]Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
Why didn't the 2nd amendment have to be repealed before any anti-gun laws could be passed anywhere at all? I need to ask my lawyer friend, maybe he knows
I double checked my source on this (a widely published book) and it confirmed what I thought it had said about assault weapon stats. But then I realized it was still third party information. So doing some more checking it seems to be a pretty contentious issue as to whether the ban did reduce assault weapon crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
First off you're 100% correct that the two laws are completely different and often confused:
1993: Congress passes the The Brady Handgun Violence Act, establishing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System gun dealers are to use before selling a gun. The law is named after former White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was shot in the head during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.
1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act becomes law. The law banned the manufacture, use, possession and import of 19 types of assault weapons, including AK-47s and Uzis. The law expired in 2004.
from NPR - U.S. Gun Laws: A History : NPR
I haven't found anyone actually citing hard stats (I avoided those places with an axe to grind - bradycenter.org, NRA.org and the like), but I did find a good NPR news report from Sept 13, 2004 (in streaming audio alas) that seems to back up completely your take on the assault weapon ban - " a swiss cheese law".
Ten-Year Assault Weapons Ban Expires : NPR
I remember when the AWB was first being pushed, and was outraged to a point. There was a huge media push in favor of the AWB, but every time I saw anything about it, they would have someone on television demonstrating a (real) assault weapon, firing it on full automatic fire until the magazine was empty. It is all a moot point now, but until this big push, the term "assault weapon" meant a selective fire weapon capable of either semi-automatic (one bullet each time the trigger is pulled) or full automatic fire. This is also what, in my home area, was demonstrated on the news. Obviously those were not the weapons being banned, and so media outlets ran stories on semi-auto's (but demonstrating full automatic or trigger modified weapons) and the ban got wide support. They then proceeded to ban every firearm that they felt was somehow more "deadly" due to its cosmetic features (What? a pistol grip instead of a straight stock!?? Black metal? NO!!) magazine capacity (which doesn't make the weapon more deadly-hits do that) or the ability to take a bayonet. This was obviously aimed at aficionados of service rifles and at less wealthy people whose only option was surplus Chinese, Russian, and other, military rifles should they want to shoot.
I know I'm rambling a bit, but I seriously dislike the tendencies to redefine a particular word to make it apply to whatever the lawmakers/media/etc. want it to apply to, rather than what it actually is.
True Assault rifles have been heavily regulated as class III weapons since at least the 1930's, yet there seemed to be no qualms on the part of the media in misleading the public in order to have them believe this was what the AWB concerned.
I for one am glad that piece of legislation and indeed restriction on citizens' rights, fell through. After all, if there weren't any advantages to being a citizen here, why would anyone choose to serve, why would anyone even stay, when it means working 12-15 hour days and still struggling to make by.
It is the freedoms.
Just my opinion.
John P.
correct, this was addressed by the NFA in 1934, partially in response to the St. Valentine's day massacre and the outrage is caused.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP
fyi, fully automatic weapons were STILL LEGAL before during and after the AWB. all it did was make my AR15 illegal because of the bayonet mount, while a Mini14 (same magazines, same ammunition, same rate of fire) was legal because it had a wooden stock and didn't look all tactical and scary.
"...why is registration and training so onerous?"
Pudu
Registration is repugnant to law abiding citizens, because once data is in the hands of the Guv'mint, it NEVER goes away! Now that may be just peachy, RIGHT NOW. But can you gaurantee me that a totalitarian regime won't take this country over? The gun registration information in the wrong hands will lead to confiscation. Just as it did in New Orleans a few years ago. It's the old "What they don't know, won't hurt me" scenario.
There is an organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO for short) that declares that registration always leads to genocide.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#dgc
I cannot argue with them, they seem to have all their ducks in a row!
I don't think a responsible gun owner will balk at training. I never have. It's FORCED training, required by the Government that rankles Americans. Or training that's required BEFORE you are deemed "Worthy" to buy a gun. If that was enacted, it wouldn't be long before we would all hear, "You were SO close, but you didn't pass the test...Sorry."
I am pretty Libertarian in my views. I believe that the very least amount of Government you can possibly get by with, is EXACTLY what you want! Hey...wait a minute, that's what the men who started this country thought too. :tu
Regards,
Jeeter
jeeter-> agree. what Nagin did to those unfortunate people is a first class example of how a government can abuse a registry to oppress (illegally, I might add) the citizenry.
everyone, please take note: Nagin's actions did NOT affect people who owned guns illegally. only legal owners had their guns STOLEN (and in many cases destroyed) and never returned. I honestly hope Nagin swings for that, it's downright treasonous.
Jockeys,
I saw some photos of those confiscated guns a few months ago. They had been thrown into plastic garbage cans and locked up in an outside storage facility. The ones that the 'police' hadn't damaged beyond repair, were rusted to the point they couldn't be used again.
Many Citizens upon whom this atrocity was perpetrated, claimed the cops, in many cases, swung the cylinder out, (on revolvers) placed the guns on the sidewalk and stomped the trigger guard. That springs the crane and frame, the gun is pretty well trashed at that point.
IMHO, the individual cops ought to have to pay to replace the guns they CHOSE to damage, PLUS a hefty punative settlement. These actions (Nagin's call) were the worst case of abuse of the Citizenry, by public officials, that I have ever seen, or heard of!
Maybe he was so busy confiscatng guns that he couldn't be bothered to get the 2,000 School Buses out of harm's way. Just a thought.
Regards,
Jeeter
I think I'll stock up on ammunition!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
By way of clarification, I am not accusing Nagin of telling police officers to destroy guns. I understand he ordered the guns confiscated. I suppose at that point the cops were on their own, to carry out the orders as they saw fit.
I would really like to know where you've heard that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu
I live in an area where Gang violence has been on a steady rise. California has the strictest gun ownership laws, They limit our gun ownership in every way they can imagine, and at every opportunity. Yet violent crime has steadily risen.
SanFrancisco a city with out guns if you believe the hype has gun violence on a nightly basis. In fact The city of San Francisco is responsible for a full 10% of the State of California's prison population.
Los Angeles Where they are allowed to have guns is responsible for less than 5%
Why the disparity?
I will agree that having a waiting period can stop some spur of the moment impulse crime. But that accounts for a very small amount of gun crime.
Also, most gun crimes are comitted with illegal or stolen weapons.
If you want to slow down gun crime, take measures to prevent gun theft. Instead of limiting our guns, pass a bill to help families buy large gun safes.
It's pretty hard to steal a 700 pound gun safe... Ours weighs 500 empty, and is bolted to the foundation of our house.
Better yet, pass a bill that will allow anyone who is not a convicted felon to carry a personal defense handgun concealed on their person.
"I think I'll stock up on ammunition!"
JMS
That's not a bad idea!
I once read an interesting little poem, that went:
"There aren't many problems a man can't fix
with seven hundres dollars and a thutty-ought-six."
HOWEVER, that was a few years back. It'd probably take a few dollars more, now.
I remember reading that burglaries would increase when Kennesaw, GA passed a requirement that all homes/households have a firearm (over 20 years ago?). Burglaries went dramatically down.
Car-jackings were just coming into vogue when my state was forced in court to finally begin issuing concealed-carry permits to any reasonable person who was not "un-qualified". The predictions of "vigilantes in the streets" has not become a problem. Car-jackings have been severely reduced (yes, several car-jackers, armed ones, were subsequently killed and badly injured). Our local news frequently carries stories of armed citizens who have stopped crimes in progress. I'd bet that a week (or day) doesn't go by without such a report. I live on the outskirts of a big city.
In the words of a wonderful old science-fiction writer:
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein
Here's some "Kennesaw" humor to lighten the mood...
:OTQuote:
Originally Posted by Sticky
From Beyond This Horizon, right?
Great book and great commentary on social engineering.
Right you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim