If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
They'll fix you up in a hurry. Room, board and an M60 and all the ammo you want, compliments of the American people.
Tell 'em Flylooper sent you.
__________________
"In the long run, we are all dead." - J.M. Keynes
"The strongest enemy of tyranny is a long memory." - Phil DeBar
"E Clampus Vitus" - YB1
Interesting article in the Post yesterday about how some abortion opponents are rethinking thier strategy and cooperating with Pro-choicers in developing strategies to reduce abortions. They've realized that being dogmatic and inflexible was actually causing them to drift farther and farther away from their goals.
I'm thinking there might be a lesson in there somewhere...
If childproof guns are like childproof medicine bottles, it means that children will have absolutely no problems operating them, and adults will have to fight to get them to work when they need them the most.
The definition of "assault weapon" according to the anti-gun crowd is basically any weapon which looks scary.
If it is wrong for Obama to want guns to be child safe then it is wrong to equip them with a safety.
It sounds ridiculous because it is. I was making a point about the ridiculousness of Pepe's "how do you make a gun child safe" rhetorical excess. Bottom line, what Obama said isn't outrageous at all.
But isn't an assault weapon by definition a weapon that operates as both a rifle and machine gun?
I think one major problem is that one can get parts to make a previously semi-auto rifle, fully automatic. My understanding is that you can buy a "sporterized" AK-47 or M-16 (or similar type) and then go to your local gun show, for instance, and buy the parts needed to remake it into a true assault weapon.
No an assault rifle is a medium sized weopon of medium calibre capable of automatic fire.
Interesting article in the Post yesterday about how some abortion opponents are rethinking thier strategy and cooperating with Pro-choicers in developing strategies to reduce abortions. They've realized that being dogmatic and inflexible was actually causing them to drift farther and farther away from their goals.
I'm thinking there might be a lesson in there somewhere...
Absolutely, Jim. It's the same with guns. Those of us who are for "gun control" are coming to the understanding that we have to accommodate the fact that "controlling" guns is neither feasible nor is it going to happen any time soon. Better to use a velvet glove than an iron fist. This is the great lesson of the Obama campaign.
__________________
"In the long run, we are all dead." - J.M. Keynes
"The strongest enemy of tyranny is a long memory." - Phil DeBar
"E Clampus Vitus" - YB1
I am all for keeping loaded weapons out of the hands of an inexperienced person, but I think we have some valid points that they need to elaborate on:
1) What constitutes 'a child'? Most people in rural areas were hunting at a very young age, and most probably know a lot more about how to safely handle a gun than some of the recent persons whose knee-jerk reaction to Obama's presidency was to run out an buy a gun.
2) So we build a safer gun. Ok. Now what about the millions of guns that are already on the market? I simply do not see a 'once size fits all' solution here. I didn't say it was impossible, but I will say this - not easy...
3) What constitutes an 'assault weapon'? Magazine type/capacity? Muzzle velocity? Rate of fire? Ability to conceal? I think anything can be taken to an extreme, and I believe that is the concern of most.
First point absolutly correct. After 911 gun sales jumped something like double, I dont remember exactly but it was ridiculous, I am willing to bet most of those people who purchased a firearm at that time had never seen one in person previously and this was their first weopon, but its ok, they were adults.
second, the markets already built guns with more safety features as a demand from the public. Man companies taurus being one of them equiped a special key system on the hammer of pistols so as to render them inoperable without that key, if you do not choose to use it, you do not have to, thats fine by me. Key locks and other things can be had for free from a police station, and like anything, even if the law was implimented would people really use them? Over the years people went from guns under the bed or in the closet to in gun cabinets, those soon transformed to safes and its fairly rare now to find someone without at least a 14guage cheap walmart style safe in ones home now. Again, market will provide what the people ask for.
On your last point, that is exactly the problem, the definition of assault rifle has been scewed to include astetics on weopons and previously, accomplished nothing at all, however california as always is leading the charge and only a matter of time untell the rest of America has those assinine laws in place.
Oh one more thought to the anti gun freaks on that, one of our national pistol shooters was not allowed to train with her .22 match pistol in california her place of residence becouse her pistol had a clip forward of the trigger guard. Made no sense then, and it makes no sense now.
No an assault rifle is a medium sized weopon of medium calibre capable of automatic fire.
Not really. It used to imply a military style weapon with select fire including full auto such as m-16/ ak47....
The term has now changed to include many rifles with add on's and certain styles/features...It does not at all only apply to automatic weapons. Things such as a folding stock, high capacity mags, bayonet provisions, collapsible stock, etc..are now coined assault rifles even though they do not necessarily have full auto capability.
__________________
"I have a knife!" -my 3 year old.
"Step off me or I'll hit you with a bat"- same kid
Just playing devil's advocate here, because I really don't have an opinion one way or the other about gun control:
The question has now become, can the people overthrow the government with the sorts of weapons we're discussing? Sure, using guerilla tactics, small arms, and IEDs, as well as intimate knowledge of your home turf, a small militia group can be a niusance to a modern military, but can they really depose the government as we know it?
Unfortunately, no. Due to arms control and an extremely strong military, it has become much harder. If the people were still allowed to have modern arms, such as tanks and heavy ordnance, it would be less of an issue. But those who want to disarm everyone have restricted us primarily to small arms.
Quote:
I think that the primary argument of pro-gun control people is that the potential dangers of "assault weapons" in this day and age outweigh the potential benefits. For all intents and purposes, you can defend yourself and your home with hunting weapons or pistols just as well as you can with your AR or bushmaster.
I would agree if most murders were committed with these so-called "assault" weapons, but they are not. Handguns are, by far, the leading choice of murderers, and they don't come anywhere near meeting the recent definitions of "assault" weapons. Other guns, which include non-assault shotguns and hunting rifles, are used about as often as knives, and about as often as "other" weapons to kill. Blunt objects come in last place.
Quote:
The primary defense we have against an oppressive government comes from the first ammendment, not the second.
Er... The defense we have against an oppressive government, where "primary" means "first" is the first amendment, but the primary defense where "primary" means "most important" is the second amendment. If Congress and the President some day passed a new amendment overturning the first and the second, what would you use to force the government to fall and establish a new one in its place? Harsh language or violence?
What forced Brits to give up America and allowed us to become our own nation? Talking to them, or killing them?
But isn't an assault weapon by definition a weapon that operates as both a rifle and machine gun?
The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban defined them as follows:
Quote:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Folding stock
-Conspicuous pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
-Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
-Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
-Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
-A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
-Detachable magazine
I would agree if most murders were committed with these so-called "assault" weapons, but they are not. Handguns are, by far, the leading choice of murderers, and they don't come anywhere near meeting the recent definitions of "assault" weapons. Other guns, which include non-assault shotguns and hunting rifles, are used about as often as knives, and about as often as "other" weapons to kill. Blunt objects come in last place.
Is this a factor of lethality or of availability? For example, I have seen any number of handguns in my lifetime, but only 3 or 4 assault weapons that I can remember.
It seems that people select their weapon of choice based on the level of lethality, or that altercations involving weapons are more likely to result in a death as the lethality of that weapon increases (obviously). For example, an argument involving the blunt object may not result in death if someone clobbers the other person in a fit of rage, but a shooting almost invariably does.
__________________
"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture and save it from itself." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Is this a factor of lethality or of availability? For example, I have seen any number of handguns in my lifetime, but only 3 or 4 assault weapons that I can remember.
It seems that people select their weapon of choice based on the level of lethality, or that altercations involving weapons are more likely to result in a death as the lethality of that weapon increases (obviously). For example, an argument involving the blunt object may not result in death if someone clobbers the other person in a fit of rage, but a shooting almost invariably does.
Handguns are cheap and concealable. "Assault" weapons are not. Ammo for common handguns (.38 and 9mm) is cheap, ammo for "assault" weapons is not as cheap.
Carrying a blunt object doesn't earn you as much "respect" as does carrying a gun (in the thug life).
Hexxagon Champion!
Linear Mode
