Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums

If they take the good peoples guns then the only ones with guns will be the criminals

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p%20r=goog-sl (http://"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p%20r=goog-sl")

i watched the video, i have to agree 100%.

Show it to me in mainstream news (even Fox "news" would be more credible) and maybe I'll start believing.

they can ban all they want....they cant take from me what they dont know i have....build your own...its possible.

You really listen to FOX NEWS that has got to be one of the most bought off News places in the nation. Fox would tell you anything they were told them to tell you. No Thanks I'll find my own sources for the news!

they can ban all they want....they cant take from me what they dont know i have....build your own...its possible.

Show it to me in mainstream news (even Fox "news" would be more credible) and maybe I'll start believing.

Didn't Wyatt Earp make everybody leave their guns at the sheriff's office when they rode into Dodge? or was it Tombstone ?

Flame on.

Personally, I think concealed guns are a huge part of the problem the US has with gun crimes. That's not to say there aren't responsible gun owners who are going to get shafted by laws like these (if there's any truth to this in the first place), but I'm willing to wager that these people are rare, compared to the irresponsible gun owner. Besides, you can't argue with numbers. Countries with bans on assault rifles and concealed weapons have drastically lower rates of gun crimes.

Personally, I think concealed guns are a huge part of the problem the US has with gun crimes.

That's not to say there aren't responsible gun owners who are going to get shafted by laws like these (if there's any truth to this in the first place), but I'm willing to wager that these people are rare, compared to the irresponsible gun owner.

Besides, you can't argue with numbers. Countries with bans on assault rifles and concealed weapons have drastically lower rates of gun crimes.

Personally, I think concealed guns are a huge part of the problem the US has with gun crimes.

Sam Steele did the same thing during the Gold Rush into the Yukon. If you wanted to pan Gold in the Yukon, you had to hand over your guns, and a good portion of those gold seekers were from the US. I bet that law was a favourite. :hick:

Personally, I think concealed guns are a huge part of the problem the US has with gun crimes. That's not to say there aren't responsible gun owners who are going to get shafted by laws like these (if there's any truth to this in the first place), but I'm willing to wager that these people are rare, compared to the irresponsible gun owner. Besides, you can't argue with numbers. Countries with bans on assault rifles and concealed weapons have drastically lower rates of gun crimes.

Flame on.

Break and enters in BC are triple compared to Texas.
Concealed weapons reduce crime, thats a fact.

what are your professional thoughts on my knife adventure previous post? I think its a shame. Id rather just conceal a knife than a gun but I have no choice if I want protection.

It freaks me out to think of it.

and thats why they are concealed. its safer and less alarming for frightened floks like yourself.

and thats why they are concealed. its safer and less alarming for frightened folks like yourself.
 
edit (fixed)

It's more the idea that you can never tell who's packing. Being on the bus and thinking "There are at least 8 handguns within 12' of me right now."

Remember that slomins shield commercial when the burglar pulls up and says “what’s with the slomins shield” what house would they pick if they had to pick that one and the one next door that who he thinks the owner might have a gun.

So what?

I think everyone should just go back to carrying swords.

So that freaks me out. Having some trouble with the fact that I don't have your opinion, or what? I expect to be the odd man out in this thread. I'm not an idiot.

I think everyone should just go back to carrying swords. At least then there would be some sort of skill involved.

Jcassity
I can’t believe local law enforcement gave you that much time.

I think everyone should just go back to carrying swords.  At least then there would be some sort of skill involved.

I'm gonna get a bazooka permit tomorrow.

Using the same "It's my God-given right" logic that right wingers usually use, it should be perfectly OK for everyone to store a nuclear weapon under his bed, or to stockpile bilogical weapons. Nuclear arms are arms, right? And the second amendment does not specify the type of arms, right? A .410 shotgun is exactly the same as an M16 is exactly the same as a Glock is exactly the same as a Blackhawk helicopter. They're all arms, right? Obviously when that amendment was written, it was written in the sense that everyone should have a handgun in their vest, an assault gun strapped to their shin, and a nuclear bomb hidden in the closet. I'm sure that's what the forefathers meant.

This is exactly what I meant in that other recent thread, about how people pick and choose the parts of the constitution they want to hear. They want anything that they agree with to be interpreted as broadly as possible (we all know the original writers of the document did not have machine guns in mind, but since they didn't specifically mention anything against machine guns they must be OK, right???). Meanwhile they want everything they don't agree with to be interpreted as narrowly as possible (equal rights couldn't possibly be extend to gays, could it? Did the forefathers really want to protect those dirty homoshaguals?)

...And as I mentioned in that other thread, BOTH sides are guilty of this manipulation of the wording of the constitution. Just like each religion (and on a finer note, eact religious person) is guilty of picking the parts of the bible that suit them while ignoring the parts that condemn them. This is why we don't see "God hates Adulterers" signs protesting soldiers' funerals. The bible clearly states that adultery is wrong, but it slips under the radar of religious folk because it's something they can see themselves doing (or indeed, already do). In the minds of these people it's OK to fvck around on your wife, as long as it's with a woman. The bible is pretty clear that this isn't true, but we'll just ignore that little bit because it might affect us.

And even the Catholic church itself is guilty of this "bending the rules" bit. Catholic tradition clearly states that marriage is until death, but if you pay a church enough they will "unmarry" you so you can marry someone else. I know this as fact because my brother married a catholic woman. He had been married before, so the church wasn't going to allow him to marry her (in their eyes, since divorce doesn't exist, he was still married). All was not lost, though: After paying the church a princly sum he was "unmarried", so that he could pay the church another princly sum to get remarried.

nuclear weapon under his bed, or to stockpile bilogical weapons. Nuclear arms are arms, right?

And the second amendment does not specify the type of arms, right? A .410 shotgun is exactly the same as an M16 is exactly the same as a Glock is exactly the same as a Blackhawk helicopter.

This is exactly what I meant in that other recent thread, about how people pick and choose the parts of the constitution they want to hear. They want anything that they agree with to be interpreted as broadly as possible (we all know the original writers of the document did not have machine guns in mind, but since they didn't specifically mention anything against machine guns they must be OK, right???). Meanwhile they want everything they don't agree with to be interpreted as narrowly as possible (equal rights couldn't possibly be extend to gays, could it? Did the forefathers really want to protect those dirty homoshaguals?)

Just like each religion (and on a finer note, eact religious person) is guilty of picking the parts of the bible that suit them while ignoring the parts that condemn them. This is why we don't see "God hates Adulterers" signs protesting soldiers' funerals. The bible clearly states that adultery is wrong, but it slips under the radar of religious folk because it's something they can see themselves doing (or indeed, already do). In the minds of these people it's OK to fvck around on your wife, as long as it's with a woman. The bible is pretty clear that this isn't true, but we'll just ignore that little bit because it might affect us. And even the Catholic church itself is guilty of this "bending the rules" bit. Catholic tradition clearly states that marriage is until death, but if you pay a church enough they will "unmarry" you so you can marry someone else. I know this as fact because my brother married a catholic woman. He had been married before, so the church wasn't going to allow him to marry her (in their eyes, since divorce doesn't exist, he was still married). All was not lost, though: After paying the church a princly sum he was "unmarried", so that he could pay the church another princly sum to get remarried.

religion is not as concrete as the documents that were established for our country.

WTF is your problem? You have a brain and think you can use it? Why oh why, would you do such a thing.  I think the fore fathers wrote all of those Broad and wide for a reason. That is so thing were way different than they had it. They are laying it out for us. They had been there and seen just how things can get when the those goverening you have all the rights and you have little to none. I look at the Bill of Rights and I think Yes these fore fathers were smart enough to think about me and all the rest of us. THANK YOU FORE FATHERS! Yeah that might mean that I see to guys walking hand in hand in public or even to chicks WOOOOOO!  But that same BILL OF RIGHTS covers them to. This country is about FREEDOM and your right to do it your way. Yeah I don't like to see to dudes together or people getting shot by a criminal but they have rights and so do we so every one needs to STFU and learn to get along and DEAL with it. Yeah  will happen people will get hurt and some may even die. But all those things will still happen with or without guns. IF you don't have a gun you'll get a knife or a sword, if you don't have one of those you'll get a rock or make a spear, and so on a so forth. SO the best bet is to LEARN TO GET ALONG! If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all! Yeah I remember mom always telling me that!

seriously?
in no way would a nuke ever be inturpreted as personal pertection. WOMD should not and certainly do not apply.

sure, why not?

religion and the bible, hypocracy etc. has nothing to do with the issue at all. the law governs us, my rights are directly affected by them, not religon or the bible. religion is not as concrete as the documents that were established for our country.

My point is this: ban the guns...see what happens. There will still be violent crime, just with a different weapon.

I feel pretty much the same way you do, Beau. I own hunting rifles, but I fail to see why anyone feels the need to own an automatic assault rifle.

Looking for a time-out are we? Dude, you need to step back from the keyboard and think before you type. My disagreeing with you does not mean I'm not using my brain. Your posting stupidity like that (personal insults) proves you're not using yours.

id would undoubtedly be worse. first off, its not going to be just the crinimal that keep them, theres many honest, responsible gun owners that wouldnt give them up.

just because you fail to see why someone may feel the need, or desire to own an automatic assault rifle doesnt mean that they shouldnt be able to.

thats like saying people shouldnt be able to keep old cars/hot rods because other people cant see a use for them. same thing goes for fast cars.
 
heck, that same scool of thought is like saying we shouldnt have cars that can even go past the speed limit, because its not leagal to.

I it could even be argued that handguns have a legitimate use (self defense - [COLOR="red"]a poor excuse[/COLOR], but an excuse nonetheless).

No, you've got that wrong. I see the purpose of assault rifles: Murder. They have zero other purpose. That is plenty reason to keep them out of peoples' hands. Assault weapons are designed to do one thing and one thing only: Kill people. Automatic assault weapons are designed to do the same, only more people in less time. They are designed, built, and sold for that reason and only that reason. They are not useful or practical, or even designed for deer hunting. They were never designed nor intended for self-defense (otherwise they'd be called "defense rifles", not "assault rifles". QUOTE]
 
again, granted they were designed for killing, doesnt mean thats what one has one for. there is collectability. people collect all kinds of weird shiznit. some people just love guns. how about those that have had weapons passed down to them from fathers or other family members etc. theres sentimental value. what about the pleasure of fireing one off at the range, there is sport in that, and hell its fun as well.
 
so tell me this, the puppies. rifle, bayonette and all that my father left to me that was given to him by his uncle who recovered it himself. it was designed for killing. in fact im quite sure it took many lives. should i not have such a weapon?
 
 

Quote

[I would say if the state banned assault weapons (weapons built with the primary purpose of making people dead) and people refused to give them up they would be neither honest nor responsible. They would, in fact, be criminals. And if they so much as threatened to use said weapons in defence of their perceived right to own them, they would be dangerous, violent criminals. /QUOTE] i guess i took it a touch far, assuming an all out ban reguarding fire arms though i didnt state it. i think that would make many people crinimals in the eyes of an unreasonable government, and law.
 
a ban on all assault weapons would be the foot in the door on such a law. im one of the "paranoid ones" who think the government would love nothing more than to regulate and strip your rights down to nothing. they want to tell you what they think is right for you.
 
again, guns may be scarry and bad to some people, but they are what this country was founded on, hence the cival war. the government has no rite to render its public without defense from it.
 

Quote

I for one have had it with the "you don't need it" argument. Some people simply like to take their guns down to the range and shoot them. My old man is one of them. He has a bunch of different pistols because he likes to shoot them. You don't need a 460, or twin turbos, or 30# boost, or a lot of other things in your 'Bird, but some of us here like to drive them. You don't need 400hp...but some of us like to have it! I've had it with people telling us, "you shouldn't have this because you don't need it." My dad doesn't need the twenty-odd pistols in the house, and guess what, as long as NO ONE HAS THE ARROGANCE TO BREAK INTO THE HOUSE then no one will ever see themselves facing the business end of one.

Sheesh! You'd think that in this group of all groups, we'd recognize that old Honda-driving-soccer-mom argument ("you don't need a V8...it burns too much gas!") Well, guess what, sweetie: I LIKE my V8, and my employer pays me enough that I can afford the gas.

My philosophy is pretty simple: we are adults, and as adults, we are sovereign from one another: you don't harm me, and I don't harm you, you don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do, and that way we all get along. It's when a stranger tells me that I don't need something that I start looking for his "God" card...because the man in the sky must have died or something.

thanks. you said what i wanted much better than i managed to.

Im asking for real here, I mean if you guys up north do things differently or are allowed to protect yourself with some sort of legal weapon other than a gun then pipe up!!  Help!!  Im sure you guys have some sort of secret up there that aces a gun, thats obviously why your not for them.  Or.... is it worse and your not allowed to carry them,,?



Get your head around that one for a minute and stew on it.

I for one have had it with the "you don't need it" argument. Some people simply like to take their guns down to the range and shoot them. My old man is one of them. He has a bunch of different pistols because he likes to shoot them. You don't need a 460, or twin turbos, or 30# boost, or a lot of other things in your 'Bird, but some of us here like to drive them. You don't need 400hp...but some of us like to have it! I've had it with people telling us, "you shouldn't have this because you don't need it." My dad doesn't need the twenty-odd pistols in the house, and guess what, as long as NO ONE HAS THE ARROGANCE TO BREAK INTO THE HOUSE then no one will ever see themselves facing the business end of one.

Sheesh! You'd think that in this group of all groups, we'd recognize that old Honda-driving-soccer-mom argument ("you don't need a V8...it burns too much gas!") Well, guess what, sweetie: I LIKE my V8, and my employer pays me enough that I can afford the gas.

My philosophy is pretty simple: we are adults, and as adults, we are sovereign from one another: you don't harm me, and I don't harm you, you don't tell me what to do and I don't tell you what to do, and that way we all get along. It's when a stranger tells me that I don't need something that I start looking for his "God" card...because the man in the sky must have died or something.

again, granted they were designed for killing, doesnt mean thats what one has one for. there is collectability. people collect all kinds of weird shiznit. some people just love guns. how about those that have had weapons passed down to them from fathers or other family members etc. theres sentimental value. what about the pleasure of fireing one off at the range, there is sport in that, and hell its fun as well.

so tell me this, the puppies. rifle, bayonette and all that my father left to me that was given to him by his uncle who recovered it himself. it was designed for killing. in fact im quite sure it took many lives. should i not have such a weapon?

i guess i took it a touch far, assuming an all out ban reguarding fire arms though i didnt state it. i think that would make many people crinimals in the eyes of an unreasonable government, and law.
 
a ban on all assault weapons would be the foot in the door on such a law. im one of the "paranoid ones" who think the government would love nothing more than to regulate and strip your rights down to nothing. they want to tell you what they think is right for you.

again, guns may be scarry and bad to some people, but they are what this country was founded on, hence the cival war. the government has no rite to render its public without defense from it.

id would undoubtedly be worse. first off, its not going to be just the crinimal that keep them, theres many honest, responsible gun owners that wouldnt give them up. ...............i agree with this...i talked to my buddy who owns a gun store and he teaches gun and survival classes and he said we have nthing to worry about
and all of those who know me know i carry a gun every where i go ...so let someone tell me i can no lnger do that

And once again, the car comparisons are moot. Cars were designed to move people. Assault weapons were designed to kill them.

Let's just say I want to collect IED's (this is, of course, merely a sarcastic comparison. I do not collect, not do I have any desire to collect, IED's). Let's pretend I am just fascinated by the improvisation and intricate design of IED's. I search all over the internet for information on how to build them, and I build them. They are just sooooo cool.

Of course, if I'm going to build IED's I'm going to want to use them. Every week I take my latest IED's out to the desert and blow them up. It's great fun, and I can use info observed with each explosion to fine tune my IED's. I'm actually getting really good at it, too. My IED's are awesome.

Should this be legal because I've found a supposedly harmless use for a deadly weapon?

There are several differences between your WW2 rifle and an assault weapon. First off, your rifle is probably bolt action, just like a deer rifle. Second, it has a sentimental and historical value passed on through generations. Third, if push came to shove and the weapon was outlawed it could easily be rendered inoperable so that it could be used as a display/conversation piece. Not that it would be outlawed, mind you - an assault weapon ban wouldn't cover your old rifle any more than it would cover a .303 Brit. Fourth, I'm no expert on puppiesanese bayonette rifles, but I'd bet this is not a weapon that is easily concealed.

An all-out ban on firearms WOULD make many people criminals, myself included. I would not give up my deer rifle lightly. There is nothing to suggest that a ban on assault weapons would degrade to a ban on every gun. To suggest otherwise is nothing but Dale Gribble-esque anti-government paranoia. Most (if not all) countries with gun regulation allow hunting rifles and shotguns. I know this, as I live in one of those countries.

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.

explosives, neuks WOMD bombs etc are an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CLASS OF WEAPON.

Actually, when I read that, it looks like the people intended to own these rifles to defend the security of a free state are also those enrolled in that state's Militia. How many concealed weapon permits are issued to those in the Militia? How many people used those weapons to defend the state?
.

Actually, when I read that, it looks like the people intended to own these rifles to defend the security of a free state are also those enrolled in that state's Militia. How many concealed weapon permits are issued to those in the Militia? How many people used those weapons to defend the state?

fla also has a castle law with makes it leagle to shoot and kill anyone on you property...it no longer states if you fear for your life or life of someone else...you now can protect material property.ie home,auto,ipod..what ever.

And Assault rifles are an entirely different class of weapon from hunting rifles.

That being said, you being a repo guy are one of the few citizens that has a legitimate reason for carrying a gun. You go onto peoples' properties and take their vehicles back for the bank, often during the middle of the night. Those people are not going to be particularly happy to see you, and quite often will offer you violence. You've got good reason to want to protect yourself. However, you should be required to be licensed to carry that firearm (and a condition of getting that license should be proof for need of carrying one).

blees them thats as it SHOULD BE nation wide.
in Ma, if i shoot an intruder even if he is trying to kill me, i the home owner would go to jail.
 

dude, they most certainly are NOT. certainly and without question they are not in the same mannar that explosive charges, wmnd, bombs, grenades, mistles or any of that other nonsense are. while they may spacifically be a different "class" like hand guns are a different class, they are still firearms and should be protected as such.
 
why should i not be able to protect my home with what ever type of FIREARM i chose? is there something wrong with that? should i not have to "up the odds" of me surviving a "gun fight" with an intruder by having a superior weapon?

Hunting most certainly serves purposes, one of which you admitted to (population control). It also puts meat in the freezer, or do you think I should be forced to buy my food? What if I can't afford it? This was actually the case with me in the year following my car accident, when I was so broke I'd have starved without deer meat and rabbits. It also generates important revenue for government (in particular, the Natural resources department, which is funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing permits).

.

and now look who's making exceptions for thier personal reasons:flip:

Now your flip floping to "its ok to carry if you have an occupational hazard".

Well, I fit the catagory as well, not many of you would go where I go all the time during the hours i do.

But, like i siad, Id rather carry a knife instead of a gun.  Our US LAW will not allow it but I think i just found a loop hole.
I can carry a "TOOL".

:rollin: WOW, you guys can scavange for food up there?

Here in the states, if you can not afford food, you are not subject to the "SPORT" the Dept of Natural Resources imposes by way of taxing the sport.
You are not partiting in the season nor the sport, You are scavanging for food.

Thank god I know nothing bout the british ways, its probably a good thing.

In case you missed it earlier, I said that self defence was a poor excuse (an excuse, but a poor excuse) for carrying a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder Chicken (http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif) (http://"http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showthread.php?p=243346#post243346")
In case you missed it earlier, I said that self defence was a poor excuse (an excuse, but a poor excuse) for carrying a gun.
 
Nope,, I didnt miss it and you didnt see my reply to it. Its the dumbest thing ive ever whitnessed you say EVER!!! and i mean it.

Where, exactly, are arms broken down into classifications in the second amendment? Where is the word "Firearm" even used? Where does it say "guns, but no bombs"? Maybe the fathers of confederation meant you should be able to keep bowie knives or bows & arrows? By breaking "arms" down into classifications you're doing exactly what you claim to be against. In the eyes of the constitution a hand grenade is the same as a muzzle loader is the same as a pipe bomb. If government has no right to define "arms" you certainly don't.

Out one side of your mouth you're trying to broaden the definition of arms, out the other side you're trying to tighten it.

And how does keeping an AR-15 hidden in your coat qualify as protecting your house again?

Where, exactly, are arms broken down into classifications in the second amendment? Where is the word "Firearm" even used? Where does it say "guns, but no bombs"? Maybe the fathers of confederation meant you should be able to keep bowie knives or bows & arrows? By breaking "arms" down into classifications you're doing exactly what you claim to be against. In the eyes of the constitution a hand grenade is the same as a muzzle loader is the same as a pipe bomb. If government has no right to define "arms" you certainly don't.

As for Canadian criminals getting their guns from the USA, sorry, but it's a fact. The vast majority of illegal weapons come from the USA. This is because criminals know they can find the weapons there (much like much of America's weed comes from Canada, and much of its heroin comes from Afganistan, and much of its cocaine comes from Columbia) - because criminals know to go to the easiest source. And it's not just so-called "criminals". It is a common news item in Canadian papers where a law-abiding US citizen gets nailed at customs with a handgun hidden away in his Winnebago.

And it's not just so-called "criminals". It is a common news item in Canadian papers where a law-abiding US citizen gets nailed at customs with a handgun hidden away in his Winnebago.

And while on the subject of criminals: Where does it specify that you have the right to keep and bear arms as long as you've never broken the law? What if convicted felons decided to lobby Washington to broaden the second amendment so that it covers their right to own guns? What right do you have to stop them? Convicted felons are not mentioned in the second amendment, so they should not be excluded. Furthermore, elsewhere in the constitution and/or bill of rights it says that once a criminal has served his time he can no longer be persecuted. You're denying him his constitutional rights by disallowing him owning guns.

Hunting most certainly serves purposes, one of which you admitted to (population control). It also puts meat in the freezer, or do you think I should be forced to buy my food? What if I can't afford it? This was actually the case with me in the year following my car accident, when I was so broke I'd have starved without deer meat and rabbits. It also generates important revenue for government (in particular, the Natural resources department, which is funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing permits).

Cars can easily be demonstrated to have a use that benefits society. Assault weapons can and do not benefit society in any way whatsoever, unless you're a soldier (and nobody is trying to disarm soldiers). Your car comparison is still invalid. If somebody were to build a car that was made primarily to kill people you can bet your ass it would be outlawed. Until somebody makes such a car your comparison is moot. Hell, in case you didn't know, cars designed to protect the occupants (armoured vehicles) ARE illegal for civilians to own.

Sorry, but spouting the same weak rhetoric over and over is not advancing your argument. You still haven't even provided a legitimate reason for owning assault weapons, other than "the constitution doesn't say I can't". If going to the range is a legitimate reason for owning assault weapons, going to the desert is a legitimate reason for building pipe bombs.

Thank god I know nothing bout the british ways, its probably a good thing.

For example, a review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and both homicide with a gun and overall homicide rates (Killias excluded Northern Ireland from the buttstuffysis because of the level of civil unrest). In an buttstuffysis of 14 countries, the correlation between gun ownership and gun suicide was also significant, as was the correlation of gun ownership with overall suicide rates. Killias found no evidence of a compensation process whereby other means were substituted with firearms.

As a result, Canada has roughly  1 million handguns while the United States has more than  76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.

Criminologist Neil Boyd concluded that there is more evidence to support the efficacy of gun control legislation in reducing death and injury than there is for most other legislative interventions. In reviewing the evaluations of the Canadian legislation he wrote:

    "In three separate forms of statistical buttstuffysis - exploratory, time-series and structural - researchers have found evidence to suggest that gun control has had an impact on homicides and firearms homicides. The finding that an amendment to criminal law can change behaviour in the direction desired is unusual. We have had many amendments to Canadian criminal law during the past 40 years: for example changes to the penalty structure for homicide in 1961, 1967, 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1985; changes for the penalty structure affecting illegal drug use and distribution in 1961, 1969 and 1974.... In none of these cirspoogestances has it been possible to establish that a change in law can impact behaviour in the direction that the law hopes for or antites. With gun control legislation, we have some preliminary evidence - some strong suggestions - that the criminal law is working. And it is working, not by manipulating penalty levels for specific forms of crime, but by putting a regulatory system in place that can limit access to firearms, enhance the safety of firearm use, and, in a more general sense, educate the public with respect to the dangers inherent in widespread availability of these potentially lethal commodities."

Why the f**k didn't you tell us somebody was in the bathroom? Slipped your mind? Did you forget that somebody was in there with a go***mn hand cannon?

We really are all doomed when the first unmanned combat droneshiznit the battlefield.

Doomination has already begun!
MQ-1 Predator (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator")
MQ-9 Reaper (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper")

Doomination has already begun!
MQ-1 Predator (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator")
MQ-9 Reaper (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper")

I haven't said a thing about protecting your home or owning firearms, so you can stop arguing about that at any time, shame302. I'm showing support of removing concealed weapons and assault rifles from the hands of average citizens. Civilians.

After reading your last reply to Carmen, Shame302, I've concluded that you can type fairly well, but you really don't have much in the way of reading comprehension, or at least your memory is painfully short. The fact that your reply to his comments of hunting include his desire to ban all guns is shocking. No wonder this is going in circles. If we don't read and actually listen to each other, the discussions are pretty pointless, aren't they?

Hunting most certainly serves purposes, one of which you admitted to (population control). It also puts meat in the freezer, or do you think I should be forced to buy my food? What if I can't afford it? This was actually the case with me in the year following my car accident, when I was so broke I'd have starved without deer meat and rabbits. It also generates important revenue for government (in particular, the Natural resources department, which is funded almost entirely by hunting and fishing permits).

?"

out lawing assaoult riffles is just another step towards outlawing them all. i personally dont think you can ban one reasonably without banning them all. they need to be protected just as much as any other firearm. thats my take on it. you say i need to stop arguing home defense but its a lagitamite reason to own a firearm

Here's a good read for you guys:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm

Take note that it has CITATIONS at the bottom ;)

Assault Weapons Not the Choice of Criminals
 
 
When the gun control side has it pointed out to them that their sweeping "assault weapons" bans will disarm large numbers of voters, they usually come back with a more limited bill which affects a certain number of scary-looking firearms that they claim are the choice of criminals.
Actually, police departments nationwide agree that criminals do not prefer these weapons:
* Police View: Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon." (16)
* Florida study: In Florida, only 3.5% of the guns recovered by the police were guns that could loosely be defined as "assault weapons." (17)
* California study: The California Department of Justice suppressed an official report showing that "assault weapons" comprised only 3.7% of the guns used in crime. (18) While the report was eventually leaked to the media, it received little press coverage.
* Virginia task force: A special task force on assault weapons found that only 2.8 percent of the homicides involved "assault-type weapons" during 1992. (19)
* Connecticut: The Department of Public Safety reports that only 1.79% of all confiscated firearms were "assault type weapons." (20)
* New Jersey: The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state . . . has been negligible, both sides agree." (21) Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that only .026 of 1 percent of all crimes involve "assault rifles." (22)
* Nationwide: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1993 that violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" in about one percent of the crimes nationwide. (23) * Knives more deadly: According to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of being killed by a knife or a blunt object than by any kind of rifle, including an "assault rifle." (24) In Chicago, the chance is 67 times greater. That is, a person is 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death in Chicago than to be murdered by an "assault rifle." (25)

Assault-Type Semi-Automatics Often Less Dangerous
 
 
California's new assault weapons law bans firearms like the AK-47, which fires a 7.62x39 cartridge, and the UZI, which fires the same 9mm cartridge which more police departments are turning to for their departments' handguns. Neither of these bullets will do half as much damage on impact as the .30-'06 cartridge used by an ordinary deer rifle.
When firing comparable bullets, a 7.62x39 cartridge will generate only two-thirds of the muzzle velocity of a .30-'06 cartridge (2350 feet per second vs. 3140) and barely half of the muzzle energy (1495 foot-pounds vs. 2736). (35) Yet the .30-'06 was invented in 1906, long before the weaker cartridge used by the AK-47. (36)
Why would the military want to switch from a more powerful cartridge to a less powerful one, as it has done? Mr. J. Bolton Maddox, a retired Washington police captain, flatly stated that semi-automatics like the AK-47 were designed to wound, rather than kill. (37) A well-placed shot from any firearm can be fatal. But obviously, a person has a better chance of surviving being shot by a bullet meant to wound a 170-pound man instead of a bullet meant to kill a 500-pound animal.

Politicians Using Assault Weapon Issue as Political Ploy
 
 
Advocates of gun bans of this sort continue to claim that criminals and drug dealers prefer these firearms. The evidence suggests otherwise. Of the 72 murder weapons used in the District of Columbia in 1989 which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was asked to trace, precisely one was a rifle of any kind. (38) Of the 16,370 firearms seized in New York City in 1988, rifles of all kinds totaled 1,028. (39) (A firearm can be seized for any number of reasons in New York City, including a lack of the proper permit.)
Politicians have seized on this issue not because there is a great problem but precisely because this is a visible issue which appears to affect few people. They can appear to be "doing something" about crime without putting people in jail. Governor Mario Cuomo of New York berated the New York Legislature in 1989 for failing to pass an assault weapons ban in order to protect the police. But it turned out that no police officers were killed with an "assault weapon" during the entire previous year. (40)
Similarly, New Jersey Governor James Florio railroaded the legislature into passing a ban on semi-automatics in 1990, even though "assault weapons were not used in any murder in the state in 1989." (41) Furthermore, the New Jersey State Police admitted that at the time the ban was enacted, they did not have "complete figures on their [assault weapons] statewide use by criminals." (42) Yet despite this lack of hard evidence that there was any problem whatsoever, a law was passed which made criminals of the owners of 300,000 firearms. (43)
The events in New Jersey should remind us exactly what a ban on what many mistakenly believe to be a small group of firearms will mean in practice. Even though military-style semi-automatics are a relatively small part of the nation's firearms stock, a ban on such firearms inevitably must affect more traditional-looking rifles and shotguns. There is no way to mechanically differentiate the firearms proposed for registration or confiscation from the ordinary centerfire rifles honest citizens have used for sport and recreation for years.
Now that Congress feels it can ban some firearms, despite the clear wording of the Second Amendment, exactly what protection do other firearms have? Recall that New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested recently that Congress could ban the sale of 9mm ammunition on the basis that they had already banned Teflon-coated bullets. (44) This ban, it is safe to predict, will have no effect on criminal behavior, which will lead to cries for still more stringent gun control. New York City's original handgun permit law was sold to the public back in 1911 as a way to stop killing. The City murder rate leaped 18% over the next 12 months. The legislature decided the law was too weak 68 times over the next 70 years -- but fewer New Yorkers than ever feel safe in their homes, let alone their streets and parks. (45)

Military-Type Firearms Are Protected by 2nd Amendment
 
 
Assault weapons legislation not only disarms honest hunters and sportsmen while not further troubling the thug and his already illegal and far more deadly sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, but it also cuts out the heart of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
The Second Amendment was enacted not to protect hunters and sportsmen, but to ensure that the government never had a monopoly of force it could use to oppress the citizenry. Events not too long ago in Panama, China and the Soviet Union should remind us once again that when a government has a monopoly on the means of effective defense -- like semi-automatic firearms -- there is no check upon its appetites.
Even in this country, government officials can go too far. Consider a small sampling of abuses that have occurred in this decade alone:
* In 1992, government agents murdered a mother and son in the mountains of Idaho. The father, Randy Weaver, and a friend had used a deer rifle even more powerful than a standard military rifle to shoot back at the agents. (Before he was killed, the son had also used a semi-automatic military type rifle to return the agents' fire.) Weaver and his friend killed one agent, although a jury later acquitted both of these men, deeming they had used justifiable force in self-defense. (46)
* New York City and Chicago have begun confiscating firearms of law-abiding citizens, report newspapers in each city. In New York City, officials are using registration lists to identify gun owners, while in Chicago, police are making random searches in apartment complexes. (47)
Noted constitutional scholar Stephen Halbrook has documented that "[t]he British attempt to seize or destroy the arms and ammunition at Lexington triggered the revolutionary shot heard around the world." (48) Some of those arms were among the finest available at the time and helped win America her independence from tyranny. The British could not understand why the colonists wanted to keep their military-style flintlock muskets since the British Army was there to "protect" them. Today, the same question is asked about the paramilitary assault rifles owned by hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The issue has remained fundamentally the same over the years. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom tried to guarantee that no future tyrant, be he domestic or foreign, could impose his will upon a helpless population.
Those who argue that the authors of the Second Amendment did not intend to protect the right of ordinary American citizens to own military-style weapons must contend with the fact that the same Congress which passed the Second Amendment also passed the Militia Act of 1792. This law required every free male between the ages of 18 and 44 to own the same type of rifle that was used by soldiers in the Revolutionary War and to own ammunition as well.

The Supreme Court confirmed this in 1939. The Court stated in U.S. v. Miller:[INDENT]The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. (49)[/INDENT]Thus, military-styled firearms are constitutionally protected firearms for individual citizens. The Court's reference to the militia is not a reference to the National Guard but "all males" who are physically able to defend the country.

As stated by a U.S. Senate Subcommittee in 1982:[INDENT]There can be little doubt from [the Militia Act of 1792] that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia," they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, such as the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. (50)[/INDENT]This nation has enjoyed 200 years of freedom because, like the Swiss and the Israelis, individuals have the right to bear arms that can be used effectively against would-be tyrants, both foreign and domestic. That is a far surer foundation for our freedoms over the next 200 years than some bland assurances that we have nothing to fear and never will.

okay, way to back track. you dont seem to get it. out lawing assaoult riffles is just another step towards outlawing them all. i personally dont think you can ban one reasonably without banning them all. they need to be protected just as much as any other firearm. thats my take on it. you say i need to stop arguing home defense but its a lagitamite reason to own a firearm. if i want to protect my home with an "assault weapon" i should be able to. dont intrude on my property, and you would never see it. you either believe i should be able to protect my home, or you dont.
 
protecting your home and protecting your person, its all relative. assuming that even though you "havnt said a thing about protecting your home or owning firearms" your veiw is that nobody should have the right to own them. i dont believe for a secont that you are a supporter of gun ownership.
 
would you feel better if the law allowed a person to carry but rather leagally the firearm by law would have to be exposed?
 
it sounds more like you have a problem with people having arms at their side period. you do not believe in personal protection.
 
again, taking firearms weather it be assault weapons, handguns concealed or otherwise are an infringement on or freedom to do so, and would be the road to a thorough ban on forearms all together. (this would make a frightned person like yourself happy) no?
 

 
dude, you need to get over yourself.
 
what exactly did i say to carmen that was so shocking?
 

 
 
hunting serves a purpouse. sure. but having the right to own a gun to hunt carries no more warrent than having the right to own and or carry a gun to defend myself. i believe you have every right to hunt. i believe i have every right to protect myself.
 
"do you think i should be forced to buy my food?"
"do you think i should be forced to allow a preditor kill me, rape my wife and kill her and my children while he pilferages through my belongings?"

i dont believe for a secont that you are a supporter of gun ownership.

the point wasnt that an assault weapon is the best way to defend your home

And if someone's come to rape your wife, one bullet will take the ****er down, as will a pipe wrench in the side of the head. You don't need to pepper the block with a spray of bullets from an automatic rifle.

I haven't backtracked an inch. Go back and read my posts again, if you like. Every post I've made so far has been about assault weapons and carrying a concealed weapon off of your property. And nothing about banning guns outright. Try to quote me where I said otherwise, slappy. I have nothing against owning guns. I love moose meat. I just don't know how safe it is having random people pointing a device meant for mass murder to protect himself at people he feels threatened by. Our opinions obviously differ here. You seem to be the only one who can't grasp that I'm not going to agree with you. You're just going to have to deal with that, man.

I just don't know how safe it is having random people pointing a device meant for mass murder to protect himself at people he feels threatened by.

I have nothing against owning guns.

You seem to be the only one who can't grasp that I'm not going to agree with you. You're just going to have to deal with that, man.

The shocking thing is how, no matter how many times Carmen says he's not for the banning of all guns, you still turn around and say he's out to do just that. You just can't hear/read anyone else's contributions to the thread. It's amazing. You've decided what we're saying, despite what we do.

And banning concealed weapons and assault rifles does NOT lead to a ban on all guns. How do I know? I know because I live in a country that has done this, and look, there's still a hunting season. You can still hunt in the UK and in Australia (though you can't fox hunt in the UK anymore, due to conservation). We're allowed to own guns, and I'm thinking of getting one myself, since having my dogs attacked by animals three times in less than two years. Your extrapolation is false, and proven false. This isn't puppies Germany, which I know so many pro-gun advocates seem to think is the perfect model for gun control. Again, purely false. Who the hell would model themselves after the puppiess? I have feet. Hitler had feet too. GOD  IT, I'M A puppies! Ludicrous, right?

Why not? I haven't said anything to make you think I don't support gun ownership. You jumped to that conclusion all on your own. I just think gun ownership should be restricted. That doesn't mean the same thing you've made up your mind I'm saying. Assuming is the dangerous word there. And if someone's come to rape your wife, one bullet will take the ****er down, as will a pipe wrench in the side of the head. You don't need to pepper the block with a spray of bullets from an automatic rifle. shiznitty, shiznitty excuse to go dangerously overboard. I like the idea of using a shotgun (in the states) to protect your home, because at least now you're only risking the lives of those inside your own home.

And if someone's come to rape your wife, one bullet will take the ****er down, as will a pipe wrench in the side of the head. You don't need to pepper the block with a spray of bullets from an automatic rifle. shiznitty, shiznitty excuse to go dangerously overboard.

I kinda think of it as the "pit bull syndrome". I grant you that there are vicious pit bulls in this world...but yet, I willingly chose to become the owner of two of them.
Not for some status symbol, or because i'm a drug dealer (i'm not, just an example.) but because I wanted them. I keep them locked up in a huge shed out of the weather where nobody can wander up to them..not that they'd be likely to bite, they're very friendly to people...but I still don't let strangers and very few other people near them...and not kids...because I'm the one responsible. They've never bitten anything but dog food and the tennis balls i throw for them...and it's going to stay that way, just like I keep my guns secured out of reach of most people.

But using that buttstuffogy....would you turn your 16 year old, newly licensed driver loose in a 1500 horsepower drag car...I grant you, not each and every one could or would handle it safely...same as a firearm. Hell, most adults couldn't either...I seriously doubt I could, for that matter.

Not much difference in that regard, in that a car can kill as quickly or accidentally (or purposefully, even) as a bullet...in the hands of the wrong people, or the uneducated..well...you know as well as I where that can go.

I wasn't implying that the "assault" rifles be banned, but that they merely have no justifiable (to me anyways) place in hunting.

The average citizen, in trying to defend his own home against sudden and unannounced intruers is usually more of a menace to family members than the intruders themselves.

It's all moot...buy an alarm system, and don't use the "self defense" play as ammo (no pun intended) in this conversation of who should be allowed what guns and why discussion, because sir, that just is a piss-poor reason to own a firearm.
.

Try to quote me where I said otherwise, slappy. I have nothing against owning guns.

I'm showing support of removing concealed weapons from the hands of average citizens. Civilians.

And I'm all for getting rid of the guns for swords.

Personally, I think concealed guns are a huge part of the problem the US has with gun crimes.

 I just will never get the entire gun culture, when it comes to carrying one with you on a daily basis. It freaks me out to think of it.

Besides, you can't argue with numbers. Countries with bans on assault rifles and concealed weapons have drastically lower rates of gun crimes.

wow,, there is another one who thinks self defense is a piss poor reason to own a fire arm.  I just cant seem to get my head around that one

I know my knowledge of guns themselves is lacking, and the use of them, and I'm taking these points into consideration.
.

yes u  r the man  fix me one to

I'd love to oblige. :hick:

(http://www.wineglasses.com/acatalog/W5475full2.jpg)(http://www.grsnet.net/whisky/images/stories/bottle_images/glenfiddich30.jpg)

Best Scotch EVAR! It's shockingly expensive, but you'll never have a better dram in your life. ;)