Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Banning assualt rifles Racist?????

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Beavah, the anti-gun lobby and the liberal politicians they write legislation for are the ones who defined what an assualt weapon was, and it was all based on appearance. I own a single shotgun that I bought 30 years ago to hunt with. It probably has not been fired in 20 years. That being said, my house is full of "assault" weapons. The kitchen has an array of exremely sharp knives of all sizes. My garage......I can't even begin to list the things in there that can be used to assualt someone with. Hammers, wrenches, pipes, etc. And then there are my sons old baseball bats from when he played little league. And I can't forget my scouting equipment like my Buck knife and my cast iron frying pan. On 9/11, terrorists used box knives to take over aircraft full of people and crash them into buildings. The list of items that can be used as an assualt weapon are endless. The issue isn't the tool used as it is an inantimate object when not in a person's hands. The issue is mental illness that would drive a person to kill others. If I don't have a pry bar, I'll use the biggest screwdriver I can find. A person intemt on killing others will find another way to kill them if their tool of choice is not available. Besides, we don't penalize law abiding citizens by denying them of their constitutional rights because of the criminals who misuse the right.

    Comment


    • #17
      I have always been led to believe that in America a person is innocent until proven guilty. I have weapons of all sorts in my house including guns. I have never used them or had to use them in a illegal manner. If I do and it is proven as such, then I'm a criminal and should pay the price.

      However, if I have a certain legal gun in my house that with the swipe of an irresponsible president's pen, all of a sudden overnight, I'm a criminal????

      I don't care if a person has a 100 round, fully automatic Uzi on their bed stand. If it stays there to be used in an emergency. I have no problem with that. If they take it out and rob a bank with it, then the crime is not a weapons possession, but a robbery and should be dealt with accordingly.

      If a mental patient blows up a school and/or shoots the place up, it's murder and it should be dealt with accordingly. To think that we judge people by the weapon they use has never made one bit of difference. If someone commits murder, whether they used a knife, gun, baseball bat, bomb, poison, their bare hands or whatever, it doesn't change the criminal act at all.

      This is nothing more than political hype to make people think that for some unknown and strange reason, the people they elected to do something are now (for a change) doing something about it. If people can't see this whole thing for what it really is, they deserve the politicians they elected.

      Comment


      • #18
        http://nation.foxnews.com/crime/2013/01/10/15-year-old-defends-home-against-burglars-shoots-one-them-fathers-ar-15

        Comment


        • #19
          My next door neighbor had his gun (.38 handgun) stolen from his house - it was locked up. That makes me nervous.

          In my job, I deal with 120mm cannister rounds (XM1028) - that makes your sawed-off 12-gauge look like a pea shooter. I don't need to own a gun to feel "manly" or protected.

          No matter how I choose to arm myself, there is always some other person that will be able to defeat me because I will actually have a split second delay about pulling the trigger before I attempt to take a life - the criminal may not. So where does it stop?

          Where I live, the violent crime rate is 2,137 per 100,000 residents - We're #1! We're #1! In reality, most homicides are between a known perpetrator and their victim. They are not random acts of violence. However, it is these seeming random acts that get the press.

          SR540Beaver, I've got news for your, a gun is an inantimate(sic) object in someone's hand or not.(This message has been edited by acco40)

          Comment


          • #20
            Beavah, the anti-gun lobby and the liberal politicians they write legislation for are the ones who defined what an assualt weapon was, and it was all based on appearance.

            Nah, SR540. Congress wrote da legislation, eh? Lots of folks, well fed by lobbyists of all stripes. It was all based on appearance and mostly useless, which is why it passed if you'll recall.

            Like any aggressive special interest lobby, da NRA can't win them all directly. Passing a do-nothing "assault weapons" bill is da next best thing. It doesn't change much, and yeh can whip up your supporters with how scary and dumb the opposition is.

            However, if I have a certain legal gun in my house that with the swipe of an irresponsible president's pen, all of a sudden overnight, I'm a criminal????

            Well, of course it would require a vote of both houses of Congress and then da swipe of the president's pen, but don't let me stop yeh from foamin' at the mouth a bit more.

            New laws get passed all the time which make things which used to be legal into crimes. Yeh used to be able to drive your car anywhere. Now we have all kinds of laws about registering your car and needin' a license to drive and requiring insurance and not drivin' whereever yeh want in your 4x4. Henry Ford and da early auto pioneers would be "criminals". So would Wilbur and Orville. So would Sigmund Freud and Coca Cola with their cocaine habits back when that was legal. Many of us would like to do the same thing for abortion that you are talkin' about for guns, eh? Make something that is currently legal illegal. We responded after Enron and the last financial meltdown with legislation and regulation that made things that used to be legal for businesses illegal. 50 votes, 218 votes, and a signature is how we do things in the USA.

            If someone commits murder, whether they used a knife, gun, baseball bat, bomb, poison, their bare hands or whatever, it doesn't change the criminal act at all.

            That's certainly true.

            Problem is that it's not the issue. Whether someone is high on meth or drunk on beer doesn't change da DUI criminal act either, eh (another one that was at one time legal)? But we choose as a society to put more restrictions on the purchase of meth than beer, because the potential for harm is greater for one substance over another, and the legitimate uses are less.

            Beavah

            Comment


            • #21
              Sheesh, Beavah. You take all the emotion out the discussion when you use facts. Shame on you!

              Comment


              • #22
                However, if I have a certain legal gun in my house that with the swipe of an irresponsible president's pen, all of a sudden overnight, I'm a criminal????

                Well, of course it would require a vote of both houses of Congress and then da swipe of the president's pen, but don't let me stop yeh from foamin' at the mouth a bit more.

                Of course that would assume that the president wouldn't just up and do an Executive decree which is being bantered around now, then the whole Constitutional process you are suggesting would be a moot point.

                Gotta keep up with the latest news. I don't have a problem with the Constitutional basis for our Rights. I just don't like unilateral declarations replacing our due processes.

                I'm not foamin' at the mouth, I'm speaking clearly the threat expressed at the present time.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I'd rather have a mentally ill maniac chasing me around with a screwdriver than with some big honking gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    For a tyrant who has an army fit with muskets, a free man must not expect to remain free while armed with a sling and pebbles.

                    When faced with a tyrant whose army is fit with M-16's, is it unreasonable for a free man to think he should have something on hand a little more capable than grandpa's .22?

                    While Barack Obama may not be the evil that would molest our liberty, he also does not seem to be acknowledging that history shows such evil can exist, has existed, and will exist again.

                    I'm not content to live in a perfectly engineered utopia which submits to the "noble lie". It is not American.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Beavah,

                      Based on discussions I've heard on different media outlets, the anti-gunners (and most journalists) are pretty ignorant and dumb about modern gun technology. I think the AWB ban of 1994 was written by somebody with little knowledge of guns who looked through a gun catalog (something like the Shooter's Bible), and passed by others with less knowledge about guns. The thing is, despite the horrific mass shootings that do happen using assault rifles, the murder rate by rifles (assault and otherwise) is lower than the murder rate by hammers. Silly to base our legislation on such rare incidents.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        While those like me think the AWB was written by those very knowledgeable about guns and knew it didn't have any teeth but would appease the masses. Sort of like the TSA.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          For a tyrant who has an army fit with muskets, a free man must not expect to remain free while armed with a sling and pebbles.

                          Yah, hmmmm....

                          Well, BS-87, if da POTUS becomes a tyrant, then I reckon he's goin' to have an army fit with thermonuclear missiles. Are yeh really suggesting that a free man in order to remain free must maintain his own nuclear weapons stockpile?

                          Do yeh think that would make us all more safe?

                          Fact is that real tyranny is stopped primarily by social forces. Democracies fall because of extremism in the population leading to conflict and chaos, because that's when people are willing to voluntarily surrender their liberty to a dictator, and when the soldiers are willing to follow the dictator. So if yeh truly are a patriot who wants to avoid tyranny, oppose tribalism and extremism in all its forms. Work for civility and honesty of discourse.

                          Beavah

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Either way, the AWB was ineffective.

                            BS-87, Please explain where or what this "perfectly engineered utopia" is?
                            Also what "noble lie"? You have given insufficient detail for me to understand what you're trying to communicate.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Perfectly engineered utopia would be a system in which, from cradle to grave, the human knows no want as the "system" provides everything the human would ever need. I suspect it would look a lot like Aldous Huxley's vision of utopia more than Wells'.

                              "Noble Lie" is a reference to Plato's Republic, in which the system of government and power is sold to the masses as necessary because of the innate predispositions and capabilities of the common folk and the philosopher kings.

                              Tyranny is stopped by revolution, not by social forces. In the cases of a POTUS with his finger on the trigger of nuclear weapons, it seems likely that such an option is impossible for someone whose ambition is to continue ruling. The more viable option is to silence the opposition and appease the masses. Because a minority opposition, like in the American Revolution, can overthrow the government.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Nation of laws, not of men.
                                An Amendment to the founding document has a portion which stipulates:

                                "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X