Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by Pithor

My view is pretty simple:

I absolutely 100% wholeheartedly agree with that much of your post...

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

I have done work where there was plenty of interaction with people on OAS/CPP, living in community housing, in truly squalid conditions. In one case, and that was while times were better than they are now, one oldtimer told me "I am sorry, but all I can offer you is a glass of water.. Haven't been able to afford coffee for the last 6 months." They are the lucky ones. The wait for the subsidized rent community housing is LONG. Even if they kicked out all of the dealers and pimps, there still wouldn't be enough units to house all the seniors who worked minimum wage jobs all their lives and just did not save enough to retire on.

I know exactly where you are coming from. I was only trying to make light of a terrible situation and that may have been not so good an idea. I got lucky and had a well paying union job all my working life despite not even finishing high school. I was able to save for retirement despite going through a divorce almost 25 years ago. Likely the last of a generation in Canada to be so lucky. It is a brave new world of globalization out there and a race to the bottom. I don't see future generations as being substantially better off either. The problem will only worsen especially with all the government cut backs in the rush to get competitive in today's global market. Too many social problems and not enough money and the will to change things.

Bob

I'm thinking drunk drivers AND traffic accidents kill more people than guns do. Anyone have the stats on this? Was it the car that made them drink, or drive recklessly, and kill or hurt their victims? There are laws for guns, driving, and evevy other bad thing a person can do to another person. DO NOT SHOOT PEOPLE has to be a law somewhere.

So that said, making laws to take guns away from people who would not shoot another person helps nothing. Laws do nothing to stop people who are going to break them. More gun laws will take away my right to obtain food, defend my self, and the biggest one have fun at the target range.

I was tempted to point out one of the obvious contradictions of an Finn lecturing about firearms, in that they have a town named Lapua. And, yes, the town does what it's named for, makes world famous, very accurate, firearms. Just like Fiskars where the company is located that makes cutlery. I hope that the Winter War is not totally forgotten.

Unfortunately when I googled Smith & Wesson and Ruger there are no towns in the US with names like that, but I did find a Colt Arkansas with no Colt factory.

Lest you Canadians forget...one of your fellows was the world record holder for a long rifle shot not too long ago.

All the knife amnesties, the UK for example, have produced only the cheapest soddiest kitchen knives.

The failure is not the tool. The failure is in the wet computer in the tool ground interface.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Parker --
You're partially correct. It's inclusion in the Bill of Rights rests largely upon an historical basis, dating to the British policy of making the possession of arms a crime prior to the War of American Rebellion. Thus, the practice of confiscation of arms became routine. When the Union was formed, however, the nation's leaders realized that each State, to insure its own security, required a well-regulated militia consisting of as many of its able-bodied male citizens as any emergency might require. In order to have a well-regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms was essential.
It is important to note, however,that the provisions of the 2nd Amendment apply only to the National Gov't. The States can, and do, regulate the possession of arms. In essence, the 2nd Amendment provides for the individual States to maintain their own militias -- today's National Guard. That is the original intent: to allow the individual States to arm their own militias. However, through tradition and subsequent laws, private ownership of arms has become the norm.

Thank your 10th supreme court judge. I'm looking forward to a Katrina type disaster to happen in my neck of the woods, when criminals will take advantage of the fact there is no well regulated military, national gaurd, or police around for a week or two. I can rely on my government to bring me food and keep me protected from looters who want my 3 gallons of drinking water and piece of bread. Hell maybe one day, probably wont happen, Iran, china or some other country will drop some bombs, or invade the US, and we will once again we will be able to rely on our government to protect us, our families and our friends. I live in a pretty gun controlled area of the US. California SF bay area. I will never turn over all my weapons to authorities if they were to ever pass laws requiring us to do so. I will hide what i can, and hopefully hold on to the biggest baddest weapon I possibly can. Why? Because in the end when all is said and done. We are responsible for our own protection and survival. The 100 police officer protecting 100k people are not going to come and help you, and neither will the military fighting abroad in the world. I now step down from my soap box.

Originally Posted by Groth

I'm thinking drunk drivers AND traffic accidents kill more people than guns do. Anyone have the stats on this? Was it the car that made them drink, or drive recklessly, and kill or hurt their victims? There are laws for guns, driving, and evevy other bad thing a person can do to another person. DO NOT SHOOT PEOPLE has to be a law somewhere.

So that said, making laws to take guns away from people who would not shoot another person helps nothing. Laws do nothing to stop people who are going to break them. More gun laws will take away my right to obtain food, defend my self, and the biggest one have fun at the target range.

California Penal Code 245(a)(2) Assault with a firearm for instance?

Originally Posted by honedright

California Penal Code 245(a)(1) Assault with a Deadly Weapon for instance?

Most ADW code requires only that the victim perceives that a weapon was used to threaten them, not the presence of a real weapon. There is a good deal of room for interpretation.

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

Most ADW code requires only that the victim perceives that a weapon was used to threaten them, not the presence of a real weapon. There is a good deal of room for interpretation.

Such is the law.

It is sufficient to prove the elements of the crime.

Mike Blue

Some of us Canuks have not forgotten our talented Newfie sniper. A friend also uses a highly accurate and potent 338 Lapua magnum and has for several decades.

Bob