!!BAD!! the assault weapon ban may come back!!

I urge any pro gun american to oppose this ban. And join the nra they have been useful in keeping our gun rights around before and maybe they will now.


here is the link http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...litics/3240554


And here is why that ban is useless.


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...spx?Section=18

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...spx?Section=68



"An armed society is a polite society"


And while there is a gun thread go ahead and deabte whether citizens should own them.

ps another thing look how useful gun are against criminals Check each state there are too many to read ~:cheers:


pps look at the rest of these if you have time http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/De...aspx?Section=1

I quote the american farmer: "If you do not have a gun, you´r not a real american!"

I wish weapons were legal here in Sweden too...

~:cheers:

As a member of the NRA, and a strong advocate of second ammendment rights, may I suggest it would probably give your arguments more meaning if you found more impartial sources than the NRA? They are an issue advocacy group and regardless of how right I think they are on a issue, I would be the last one to call them impartial.

That being said, you forgot the words 'so called assault weapon ban'. The wording of the so-called assault weapon ban could easily be used to outlaw any weapon capable of firing more than one round per loading (i.e., anything but a black powder rifle).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

I quote the american farmer: "If you do not have a gun, you´r not a real american!"

I wish weapons were legal here in Sweden too...

~:cheers:

---

I don't know that I agree with the American farmer, but let's issue Don Corleone's corrolary on the subject:

"If you don't own a gun, you're only an American that has rights until somebody with a gun says you don't".

Democracy is two wolfs and a lamb voting on dinner; liberty is an armed lamb contesting the decision.

I wouldn't worry to much about this idiotic bill coming back, but its always good to be vigilant. Feinstein just can't stand facts I guess.

Crazed Rabbit

Why do you need an assault rifle?

Why do you need any guns to protect your rights? If the US government wanted to take away your rights a handful of guys with guns will not do anything against all the tanks, planes, artillery, missiles, and nukes (ok, that is a bit extreme) the US government has.

Because I'd rather go down fighting than live like a slave.

It's scary you want people to have guns.

The thought of some people round here getting guns is just worrying enough, let alone if they could legally get assualt ones. Every Saturday night would ring with the sound of the army being brought in to crush an armed fight.

Quote:

---

Why do you need an assault rifle?

---

Why do you need free speech? You wont die without it..

If we start judging rights by necessity, then really all the rights we need are those of having food, clothing, and shelter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

It's scary you want people to have guns.

The thought of some people round here getting guns is just worrying enough, let alone if they could legally get assualt ones. Every Saturday night would ring with the sound of the army being brought in to crush an armed fight.

---

And yet, that doesn't hardly happen over here. Generally speaking, when firearms are involved with crime, other crimes are being committed as well (such as robbery, drug tranactions, etc). Do you really believe that outlawing firearms would end all crime?

I don't get why any one wants to ban them criminals will always find somthing.


Lets look at the UK for example.... pretty much all guns are banned and the legal ones cant be kept at home. :furious3:

well now there is a movement to ban certain knives.










BBC: Knives too pointy!
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."
__________________


what next base ball bats ~:eek: then after that maybe they can declaw the children. And after that string because you might use it to strangel some one ~:eek:


And now if their government gets oppresives what are they gonna do no chance of a good revouloution without outside help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Because I'd rather go down fighting than live like a slave.

---

and down you would go....and really fast too...

if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Why do you need free speech? You wont die without it..

If we start judging rights by necessity, then really all the rights we need are those of having food, clothing, and shelter.

---

never heard of anyone going on a rampage and killing 20 people using free speech....


i understand you trying to lump the 2 things together for retoric argument´s sake...but they are not the same thing.

(sorry for double post)

Say you are crippled/old/weak what ever what can you do if a group of "ganstas" mugs you or something with out an edge.... You think outlaws will pay attention to a sign that says no weopons :embarassed:


And dont you antis use columbine to make your point those 2 broke enough laws to be in jail before that even happened.


They built pipe bombs and one of the guns was home made there are more i will find em' soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

(sorry for double post)

Say you are crippled/old/weak what ever what can you do if a group of "ganstas" mugs you or something with out an edge.... You think outlaws will pay attention to a sign that says no weopons :embarassed:

---

no......


a police force cracking down on ilegal arms is suposed to MAKE them pay attention...

Quote:

---

if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.

---

Thats not a truthful statement at all. Look at Afghanistan and what they did with bolt action rifles. The Stinger missles helped, but the resistence against the USSR was mainly done with small arms - not American weaponry.

Lets just ignore the fact that the US military would have a hard time getting its troops to attack civilians, the institution is simply not big enough to stop a popular rebellion.

Quote:

---

never heard of anyone going on a rampage and killing 20 people using free speech....


i understand you trying to lump the 2 things together for retoric argument´s sake...but they are not the same thing.

---

The argument was "Why do you need this right." In reality, we dont need any rights and trying to place value on them via necessity isnt correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Thats not a truthful statement at all. Look at Afghanistan and what they did with bolt action rifles. The Stinger missles helped, but the resistence against the USSR was mainly done with small arms - not American weaponry.

Lets just ignore the fact that the US military would have a hard time getting its troops to attack civilians, the institution is simply not big enough to stop a popular rebellion.

---

I'm with panzer on this issue. The U.S. soldiers are not blind, mindless slaves, they wouldn't attack our citizens just because a dictator told them to.
Also the south is well armed, and also knows how to use those weapons. Thats just the south, you also have the north, and the west, they have weapons to and I know people hunt in the west. The fact is that while we might not be able to defeat the army, but it would be a blood bath before its over. They couldn't guard all the bases at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Why do you need free speech? You wont die without it..

If we start judging rights by necessity, then really all the rights we need are those of having food, clothing, and shelter.

---

I agree. I never said people needed free speech, all you need is food, water, warmth and shelter. If you can control these things, people will not care about "rights" and you can get them to do anything.

Quote:

---

what next base ball bats

---

If somebody owns a baseball bat in the UK, that get hung, it is a secret law. ~D

Quote:

---

The fact is that while we might not be able to defeat the army, but it would be a blood bath before its over. They couldn't guard all the bases at once.

---

And they comes in a foreign power. So guns are bad for the US. Instead of having a strong evil dictatorship, you have a blood soaked weakened country, which may be spilt in small factions, divide and conquer. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

and down you would go....and really fast too...

if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.

---

Another one who does not understand how the United States functions or how the citizens think.

How many individuals are in the United States Military that own their own weapons - many of which are the type that would also be banned.


If the United States government attempted a form of dictorship - there will be an armed revolt in this country - just like the Founding Fathers would have wanted, and why they wrote the 2nd Admendment the way in which they did.

The government rules by the consent of the governed.

Anti gun politicians hate freedom lets see some quotes.

..........................


Yes, I'm denying you your rights.

Tom Bradley

on constitutional rights at a "Save the Brady Bill" rally. Steve Comus, Western Outdoor News


.............................


We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.

Mary Ann Carlson

State Senator (VT)


.....................................



You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.

Bill Clinton

1993-05-29


................................................

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.

Bill Clinton

1993-08-12



......................................




Any 18 year old can walk into a gun store, pawn shop or gun show and buy a handgun.

Al Gore

almost 30 years after the Gun Control Act of 1968 set the age to buy a handgun from a FFL at 21.

U.S. Vice President


....................................

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

Adolf Hitler

Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426)

1938-03-18

.........................................



In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer

Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet. Washington Post

1996-04-05

...........................................................

I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.

Howard Metzenbaum

1994

.........................................................................

I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.

Rosie O'Donnell


.......................................................

Forget what our forefathers said.

Dominick Potifrone

ATF Special Agent (Retired) "On the Inside: The BATF," Discovery Channel

2000



................................


The Democrats ran away from gun safety in the 2002 elections, and look where it got them... Whoever is advising them on gun control should be shot.

Blaine Rummel

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, spokesperson

...............................


Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

.................................................




If the [political] opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.

Josef Stalin

.............................................




Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and that gun must remain firmly in the hands of the state.

Mao Tse Tung


.........................................

it is also interesting to note that the top officials of Handgun Control Institute are gun owners themselves. They also intend on keeping them. It's other people's guns that bother them...

Mark Urbin

.....................................





if someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!

Henry A. Waxman

Representative (D-CA)



.........................................




convincing enough?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

Why do you need an assault rifle?

Why do you need any guns to protect your rights? If the US government wanted to take away your rights a handful of guys with guns will not do anything against all the tanks, planes, artillery, missiles, and nukes (ok, that is a bit extreme) the US government has.

---

The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are examples of lightly armed militia's able to prevent a victory by a modern military force. Keep this up long enough and an unpopular government would begin to lose the support of the uninvolved citizenry, and the standing army.

Quote:

---

The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are examples of lightly armed militia's able to prevent a victory by a modern military force.

---

Putting Iraq in there is a bit premeptive.

Afghanistan had a country invading it not a bad government, that came after and did not get over thrown until the USA+Allies went in.

North Vietnam beat South Vietnam+USA. NV had aircraft and artillery and stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

Putting Iraq in there is a bit premeptive.

Afghanistan had a country invading it not a bad government, that came after and did not get over thrown until the USA+Allies went in.

North Vietnam beat South Vietnam+USA. NV had aircraft and artillery and stuff.

---

And you missed his point completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't know that I agree with the American farmer, but let's issue Don Corleone's corrolary on the subject:

"If you don't own a gun, you're only an American that has rights until somebody with a gun says you don't".

---

That sounds wiser...

For those of you who are pro gun do you think there are limits to what you should be allowed to own.


And for the anti gun members are there any circumstances you should be allowed to have one.

I think any thing short of a nuke/chemical/biological weopon is fine.

So if you want full auto rpk m4s ak47 and the great glock 18 go ahead. You can own these BUT you need a class 3 license (near impossible to get) and about 15-30 THOUSAND dollar.

If you want a tank go ahead

The right to bear arms is very important as all fascist regimes get rid of fire arms first thing so they can control the populace.

But, i dont see why we need assualt weapons. What can one do with an assualt weapon other than kill many people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

and down you would go....and really fast too...

if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.

---

Well, see, in my mind, quality of life is a choice I make for myself, not something some doctor uses to justify homicide.

the ak47 is used by many countries army but this same gun will be found on MANY farms across the country it is rugged reliable has cheap ammo and holds alot of it. because of this many people buy the ak47 and other military guns like the sks and m1 garand (used one from the army are CHEAP and good ).


the same goes for almost any military gun that is why people buy them.

Assault rifles are great fun for target shooting.
I also believe that they would scare the crap out of anyone who breaks into your house (actually, I know that any gun does that but isn't part of the old assault weapons ban a ban on guns that "look scary"?).

AK-47s, M1 Garands : I LOVE them.

And I bet Stingers are great fun too ~:)

I see two different reasons for having guns: one for personal defense and one to fight against your government that suddenly has turned fascist or whatever the IMO far out scenario is.

Now I can understand handguns and maybe even rifles for self defense but if you want to protect yourself against a government turned bad you need more than rifles.

Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?

Of course I live in socialist heaven so what do I know ~:)


CBR

Thank you Taffy. Excellent point. How does putting a pistol grip on a shotgun make it any more deadly? It doesnt'. It just makes you look like a bad ass. Yet, this was one of the features outlawed under the so-called assault weapons ban.

Hell, Janet Reno boasted one time during a DNC fundraiser that if the NRA didn't calm down, she'd show them that if she chose to she could get a 22 revolver declared as an assault weapon.

I bet stingers are great fun too but, well, you can't really use them for proper target shooting and I bet they wouldn't be too useful for home defense or pest control.

I think Gawain was saying in here one time if one had had the finanical wherewithal, the 2nd ammendment guarantees their right to own a ballistic nuclear submarine.

Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?
'


yes they should.

Thats true but they would be an essential weapon for those who wants to protect themselves against a dictatorship.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

For those of you who are pro gun do you think there are limits to what you should be allowed to own.

---

Absolutely. The problem is that the guns I would (perhaps) ban, would be banned just as much for emotional reasons as for technical reasons. Which blows my argument out of the water, yet I still feel the way I do. Go figure.

The basic argument boils down to whether a person can reason that a gun that can kill twenty people a minute is really so much worse than a gun that can kill ten people a minute, that it should be banned while the other is not. We'll use a Lee-Enfield built in 1914 with an 11 shot capacity vs. an AK-series rifle built yesterday with a thirty round capacity as examples.

Is one really so much worse than the other. Yes. And no. The argument has just as much to do with phychology as with mechanics.

Sweden has 9 million inhabitants and 1,1 million hunting weapons. Only 5% of the murders here are committed with these weapons. Does that not prove that ordinary citisens with weapons does NOT have a tendens to murder innocent people on the street?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

Sweden has 9 million inhabitants and 1,1 million hunting weapons. Only 5% of the murders here are committed with these weapons. Does that not prove that ordinary citisens with weapons does NOT have a tendens to murder innocent people on the street?

---

You got any statistics on weapons used in murders?


CBR

No, I´m sorry I don´t. But the numbers are pretty clear. Legaly obtained weapons does not harm the society...

Also criminals dont usually have and ar15 or a colt gold cup. They use brands like hi point and jennings for 2 reasons.

1 they are usually poor and cant afford good guns.
2 many times they get rid of the gun after a crime would you rather lose something worth less then 100 dollars or something worth over 1000 dollars :dizzy2:


And other thing keep mac 10s and tec 9s around (DONT BAN THEM) some gangsters (with some cash) get guns like these and they are JUNK(the semi auto versions jam alot after about 500 rounds)... they get them because they look scary. For not much more money they could get a cz75 this is a VERY good gun and it is not as big and bulky like the beretta 92 or the glock17. (I think the Us military should adopt this gun it can fire with sand in it)


Another myth gun grabbers like to use is that glocks are undetectable by air port security... this is no true the outside is made of polymer but the inside has metal in it and can be picked up by a metal detector as easily as an all metal gun like a 1911.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radier

No, I´m sorry I don´t. But the numbers are pretty clear. Legaly obtained weapons does not harm the society...

---

Well if we assume they are correct then all it shows is that rifles and shotguns are not used much in murders. Gun statistics for USA shows handguns to be the big killer. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

I doubt that assault rifles will take over that role as handguns are small and easy to conceal and therefore will always be used more. When the handguns appeared back in the 16th century people saw them as weapons of assassins and thieves IIRC


CBR

I think you are right on that...

Wow. I have to say, I find the passion for weapons in this thread a little scary.

$0.02: Any society without guns is preferable for me. It just resembles a mini arms race from my outsider's perspective. Like, "the criminals have got guns, so I need a gun to protect myself from their guns". Too many guns overall, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CBR

I doubt that assault rifles will take over that role as handguns are small and easy to conceal and therefore will always be used more. When the handguns appeared back in the 16th century people saw them as weapons of assassins and thieves IIRC

---

Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)

In response to the "what if our government went bad" reason for guns, as pointed out the US army, being made up of freedom loving US citizens would probably stomp on the bad guys rather than other freedom loving US citizens - so I don't think its necessary to keep a anti-tank missile under the kitchen sink just yet, and that does seem very extreme, but then again, when was the last time an A-T missile was used for a criminal purpose?

My gut feeling is a populace armed to the teeth isn't necessary, and when it is necessary then it's not permitted - but then here in little england it's not permitted and I don't think its necessary.

I'll end my confusing rant on that confusing point methinks.

I think something like an AT missile was used in Scandinavia a few years ago during a feud between a couple of bike gangs/clubs.

Wow, are AT missiles legal in scandinavia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)

---

If I only could ban one them then I would ban handguns yes. I would prefer to ban assault rifles too but I will do another post on that later...


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Wow, are AT missiles legal in scandinavia?

---

No they were stolen from a Swedish Army Depot.



CBR

I don't think the people who used that missile were particularily concerned about its legality.

I do hope they are legal though.

The uk is living proof of why not to ban them ... In London gangs of thugs go around and attack people they call it "happy slapping" some people have been raped and killed by them. Now if they leagalize guns and let people get permits to carry them (with back round checks and training just dont let any moron start carrying) like in the USA. all it would take is a few dead "happy slappers" to clean it all up ~:cheers:


ask some of our london members here they may not agree with what i say but they will know what happy slapping is.

Well in that case we should see a tendency in US of very little crime compared to countries that didnt allow guns?

If guns are easy to get to I would imagine criminals "upgrade" to guns too but of course then you can start using assault rifles instead...


CBR

I'm more concerned about the rise in gun crime SINCE they banned hand guns in the U.K....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Well in that case we should see a tendency in US of very little crime compared to countries that didnt allow guns?

If guns are easy to get to I would imagine criminals "upgrade" to guns too but of course then you can start using assault rifles instead...


CBR

---

Look at vermont you dont even need a permit to carry there and they have some of the lowest crime in the usa. Then look at dc they are banned and have high crime but that will change soon the ban is ending http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2...wsdc01guns.txt

now dc needs a carry permit...



and it is NOT an "assault rifle" unless it is full auto :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UK Home Office

The current situation

In some areas, gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress.

Most worrying is the rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms, either to boost their image, or from a misguided idea about self-protection. Some of this is linked to gang activity, which itself is linked to the illegal drug trade.

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms
Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it.

---

...

Papewaio

Indeed. However, gun crime levels are still higher than when hand guns were legal in the U.K.

See they are banned and the criminals still carry all that law does is keep law abiding members of society from being able to defend them selves. even pepper spray is baned :help:

Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.

what's the deal with almost every Swiss adult male being allowed an assault weapon?

You don't hear about them going on killing sprees so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

And I bet Stingers are great fun too ~:)

I see two different reasons for having guns: one for personal defense and one to fight against your government that suddenly has turned fascist or whatever the IMO far out scenario is.

Now I can understand handguns and maybe even rifles for self defense but if you want to protect yourself against a government turned bad you need more than rifles.

Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?

Of course I live in socialist heaven so what do I know ~:)
CBR

---

Well living in a country like Denmark I don't suppose you would ever have to deal with a Fascist government. As you say it's really a "far out scenario". However in the unlikely scenario that a Fascist government assumed power in Denmark, or even perhaps Denmark was invaded by an outside Fascist government, not that it could ever come to that of course, but, if it did, the presence of firearms would become a matter of national freedom. Perhaps you could rely on an outside nation to supply the Danish underground, or perhaps not. Some of us prefer a little more solid of a guarantee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)

In response to the "what if our government went bad" reason for guns, as pointed out the US army, being made up of freedom loving US citizens would probably stomp on the bad guys rather than other freedom loving US citizens - so I don't think its necessary to keep a anti-tank missile under the kitchen sink just yet, and that does seem very extreme, but then again, when was the last time an A-T missile was used for a criminal purpose?

My gut feeling is a populace armed to the teeth isn't necessary, and when it is necessary then it's not permitted - but then here in little england it's not permitted and I don't think its necessary.

I'll end my confusing rant on that confusing point methinks.

---

A population armed to the teeth means it never has to become necessary. Simply trusting your leaders to be nice guys is one to go. Didn't work too well for the Weimer Republic of Germany but it's one way to go. The Freikorps had weapons and the various militia's as well but the citizenry was largely unarmed. So it was the militia that ended up as top dog that decided Germanies future. One wonders if Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) would ever have occurred if the Jews had been heavily armed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.

---

True. But this is a special case where someone's hobby carries the potential for murder and mayhem all out of proportion to most hobbies.

It would be hard to deny it is, at some level, a public health and safety issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.

---

Irrelevent. If it was only a hobby, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

It is easier to enforce a ban on weapons on an isolated country with uniform gun laws (UK, Australia and NZ).

Even with yearly amnesties it takes time to soak up all the outlawed weapons.

However no matter how big your gun is, it doesn't matter if the bad guy already has his pea shooter that may blow up in his hand to your head.

If you really want to decrease crime on a social level (we are discussing las) then seriously look at the root causes of it.

At an individual level be prepared to defend yourself with or without a gun, because at the end of the day people do kill guns just increase your reach.

I have been mugged twice in my life, both times the guys had no weapons. The first time it was myself against 3 but they where all in my field of vision so no problem walked away with 2 stitches to myself and broke the ribs of the first assailant. The second time it was one on one, or that is what I thought until a second person jumped me from behind. Not much of a chance after that but I did manage to stop any major injuries apart from chipped teeth (not much change given the amount of a rugby injuries and bicycle chipping already in place).

Both times the muggers had the initiative. Both times if they had weapons they were at close enough range they could have caused serious injury to myself or themselves. Both times I would have had zero chance if they and I had guns as they mugged me and would have had the weapons drawn. The second time if anything I would have been shot in the back.

A population armed to the teeth means it never has to become necessary. Simply trusting your leaders to be nice guys is one to go. Didn't work too well for the Weimer Republic of Germany but it's one way to go. The Freikorps had weapons and the various militia's as well but the citizenry was largely unarmed. So it was the militia that ended up as top dog that decided Germanies future. One wonders if Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) would ever have occurred if the Jews had been heavily armed?


If they were and knew guerilla war i dont think the whole hollocaust would have happened the nazis knew this and disarmed them.(read my quotes on the first page)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

Look at vermont you dont even need a permit to carry there and they have some of the lowest crime in the usa. Then look at dc they are banned and have high crime but that will change soon the ban is ending http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2...wsdc01guns.txt

now dc needs a carry permit...

---

Well Im not familiar with gun laws for all US states but there is a big difference in murder rates and Louisiana has the highest so thats must mean they have the most strict laws?


CBR

Quote:

---

True. But this is a special case where someone's hobby carries the potential for murder and mayhem all out of proportion to most hobbies.

It would be hard to deny it is, at some level, a public health and safety issue.

---

Compare the number of people killed while using a car and those killed by using a gun.

I know you are or were a gun owner so maybe you have heard of the system used in Richmond VA, where crimes that involved guns had enormous sentences. It works. Gun crime is down tons if im not mistaken.

We have viable alternatives other than forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns, when naturally criminals wouldnt anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The wording of the so-called assault weapon ban could easily be used to outlaw any weapon capable of firing more than one round per loading (i.e., anything but a black powder rifle).

---

Don't forget the good old muskets and arquebuses. ~:) :bow:

Quote:

---

Irrelevent. If it was only a hobby, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

---

Its irrelevant to you because you dont enjoy it. How would you like it if someone wanted to ban whatever you like to do?

[Edited to remove personal attack; Ser Clegane]

I agree PJ that guns should be licensed and the penalities for using them in crime should be heavily enforced.

Guns that have an alternative use to self defence such as hunting rifles should be easier to get then assault rifles or concealed handguns.

The license for a weapon should be stricter then a car. Learners permit, probabtion permit, full license.

I'd like to approach this on several levels

First, the social/philosophical. I'd rather live in a society where individuals were expected to be responsible enough to own firearms and use them responsibly, than one where the expectation is that people cannot be expected to be prudent and responsible, and hence, need to be protected.

Each day in the US there are people who live up to both expectations.

Second, the reality. There are so many guns, and their ownership is such a deeply rooted aspect of American life that it will be many years before we will be ready for teh ban. Due to the very high numbers and the ability to produce more, it is unlikely that a ban would have any effect other than diarming the responsible folks, leaving criminals with the guns.

Third, my reasons for owning guns. I've said before that I own guns to protect my home and family, since I live in a semi-rural area where the sheriff is probably 10-20 minutes away, at best. I also enjoy target practice, it is something that my friends and I get together and do for fun. I also collect guns as an investment, and view some of the nicer ones almost as works of art.

Being armed gives me the feeling that God must have when he's holding a gun (J/K, one of my fav Simpson's quotes).


Yes, gun violence can be a real problem, places like the mean streets of LA there are lots of shootings. There are already many many laws against this behavior, and IMHO restricting gun ownership further won't help that problem, which is essentially drug money/turf/racial/poverty in origin.

While it is unlikely that an armed populace could resist a determined world power equipped with today's technology, it is also apparent that most oppressed peoples first lost the ability to resist.

We've been around and around on this subject, probably just as polarized as we were. One thing that I've learned from these discussions is that those who are for restricting firearm ownership are usually concerned about gun violence and are trying to make the world a better place. Most gun-owning Americans are not nuts, just convinced that they are capable of being responsible for their own safety.

The real question for Americans is not whether we should ban guns or assualt weapons, but what is the best way allow responsible gun ownership with reasonable constraints to protect society.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Compare the number of people killed while using a car and those killed by using a gun.

I know you are or were a gun owner so maybe you have heard of the system used in Richmond VA, where crimes that involved guns had enormous sentences. It works. Gun crime is down tons if im not mistaken.

We have viable alternatives other than forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns, when naturally criminals wouldnt anyway.

---

You're preaching to the choir. I agree with almost all of what you say. I've owned dozens of guns, from assault weapons to single shot .22s. I'm more than well aquainted all most facets of the issue. I even wrote a newspaper article once comparing the M-16 to the Lee-Enfield SMLE in terms of a public safety issue. My conclusion was that both were equally dangerous.

Yet I also have a deep feeling, a mistrust if you will, about high tech weapons in the hands of Joe Average. I know it's an emotional response to a technical issue involving mechanical objects, which is as stupid as the day is long, but at what point do you disregard a gut feeling? Especially one involving the safety of those around you.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying the other side can raise very valid points.

(How come [edited as the relevant statement has been removed; Ser Clegane])

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Well living in a country like Denmark I don't suppose you would ever have to deal with a Fascist government...

---

For that we have the homeguard (61000 men and women who have their weapon at home) plus various depots for an eventual mobilisation. There should be enough weapons for a small civil war but I guess one can always have more.

We actually did have a near fascist period in the late 1890's and lots of rifle clubs were created back then IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

what's the deal with almost every Swiss adult male being allowed an assault weapon?

You don't hear about them going on killing sprees so much.

---

AFAIK the Swiss allows people to have their assault rifles at home but they are still part of the militia that are to be mobilised in case of war. So there is still some control of who actually have the weapons and therefore not everyone can have one. I dont know about their handgun laws.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

For that we have the homeguard (61000 men and women who have their weapon at home) plus various depots for an eventual mobilisation. There should be enough weapons for a small civil war but I guess one can always have more.

We actually did have a near fascist period in the late 1890's and lots of rifle clubs were created back then IIRC.

---

Didn't you also have a Fascist period from 1940 until 1945? The reasons for having an armed citizenry is well illustrated by your nations history, IMHO.

The homeguard doesn't seem to have done much to prevent these incidents.

Personally I am an advocate of gun restriction.I can stretch to allowing them for hobbies, as long as they are under extremely secure protection at all times.

Intuitively guns just lead to a MAD scenario. I have a gun, so the criminal gets the bigger gun, so I get a bigger gun, so the criminal gets a bigger gun, so I get a tactical nuclear weapon and there goes my suburb. If guns become common for citizens, then everyone has to get one as they can't risk a criminal coming into their house with a gun and them not having one.

I think if there is a problem with crime, then that is a societal problem, and simply arming everyone to the teeth is not a satisfactory outcome. Was the cold war satisfactory? I would say no, and the non cold war aftermath is far better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Because I'd rather go down fighting than live like a slave.

---

You can do that with out a gun. Would Probably be more simple too.

The occupation yes. The homeguard was not created until after the war in the spirit of the resistance movement.

1885 to 1894 was a political/constitutional struggle. The government used provisional laws and did indeed strengthen the police and restricted freedom of press and weapon laws. Many of these laws came into being after an assassination attempt on the PM. But in the end it was solved peacefully. Any armed struggle by the peasants and workers could have turned it something really bad IMO

What to say about the German occupation? Nothing would have stopped the Germans from invading and it took nearly 3 years before the popular opinion had changed enough to force the government to give up. I don't know what lots of weapons would have done to make it different.


CBR

Quote:

---

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying the other side can raise very valid points.

---

Fair enough - i know its ridiculous to let non-military personnel have many weapons.

Quote:

---

(How come [edited as the relevant statement has been removed; Ser Clegane])

---

Declaring the interests of responsible gun owners irrelevant is pretty arrogant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgb

Intuitively guns just lead to a MAD scenario. I have a gun, so the criminal gets the bigger gun, so I get a bigger gun, so the criminal gets a bigger gun, so I get a tactical nuclear weapon and there goes my suburb. If guns become common for citizens, then everyone has to get one as they can't risk a criminal coming into their house with a gun and them not having one.

---

Kind of a silly argument don't ya think? A criminal could have a cannon and still 1 well placed .22 shot will stop him cold- no tac nukes needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Kind of a silly argument don't ya think? A criminal could have a cannon and still 1 well placed .22 shot will stop him cold- no tac nukes needed.

---

Ok, I went into a bit of hyperbole there ~;). And by bigger I didn't mean in sheer size, it was a general "effectiveness" measure of a gun. I think we have had this discussion before between us though haven't we ~:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

What to say about the German occupation? Nothing would have stopped the Germans from invading and it took nearly 3 years before the popular opinion had changed enough to force the government to give up. I don't know what lots of weapons would have done to make it different.

CBR

---

Some things would have stopped the Germans from invading.

What nation in europe had a well armed citizenry? Switzerland.

What tiny, neutral, nation was not invaded by the Germans? Switzerland.

If Denmark had in fact, a similar system to the Swiss, I doubt the Germans would have bothered, as it would not have been worth the effort required.