Triumph
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,031
- 14
- 81
Why not? What purpose do you have for a large capacity hard drive? It's simply practical to have a larger capacity magazine. You simply don't like it because it "looks" bad (same goes for a folding butt stock and a bayonet).
That's right, because we should trust our government. And you're right, because of what happened to the Branch Davidians, we should always just turn over and play dead if the government tries something. You have to understand that most of these people simply want to be left alone. I don't see a problem with that.
Well, people rarely kill people with legal guns. You can't interfere with supply and demand. Bad people will always demand guns.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
When I left Minnesota most of the Democrat politicians were pro gun.
I suspect things may have changed in 9 years though.
I suspect things may have changed in 9 years though.
lol was wondering when the thread would return to topic.
I do think the common feeling regarding gun control is also very closely related to "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile". Most people don't believe or trust the government to do as they say and that's our fault for electing them.
Which is why i'm looking to see where the common sense middle road politicians are.
I do think the common feeling regarding gun control is also very closely related to "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile". Most people don't believe or trust the government to do as they say and that's our fault for electing them.
Which is why i'm looking to see where the common sense middle road politicians are.
Why are gun owners so opposed to registration? Your car is registered and has a license plate identifying you on the back, where is your outrage over that?
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930?s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.
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.
I's for a democratic militia massively armed so that the next time the Supreme Coup dethrones the real president like they did to Gore we can revolt.
There are very, very few people who want to take away all guns. Just assault weapons. The general public have no need of sub-machine guns, or full machine guns. Hand guns and rifles, ahve at em. But they do need registration. The argument that because criminals wont register guns no one should is a bogus argument. By that logic we shouldnt have any form of law at all. Waiting periods, for back ground checks(checking for warrents, felony convictions, and so on), are good too. And if you feel you absolutly possitivly need a gun right now, you absolutly positivly do not.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
Welcome Newb!
Your first statement is absolutly positivly wrong.
Thats the bogus argument that people have been using for years to take away guns slowly and surely.
Most people have no real clue what an assualt weapon is. Partly because we all see assualt weapons differently. I can assualt someone with a 22 single shot. Its also a lot more accurate and precise than many weapons currently banned. Eventually a 22 long rifle will be seen as a sniper weapon by the gun-haters and they will be trying to ban that too.
People usually call it an assualt weapon if it looks scary. And if the laws across the country are any indication, thats about the only common denominator.
I have much more to say, but will continue this discussion later, after I've enjoyed a night on the town.
Manana, peeps!
Your first statement is absolutly positivly wrong.
M: While it would be right for me to call you wrong to call him wrong it would only be right if I gave a reason and that reason is that just saying somebody is wrong does not make them wrong. You have to make an argument. Mine is that you did not.
Thats the bogus argument that people have been using for years to take away guns slowly and surely.
M: What, you mean guns have disappeared and nobody now has any? Geez
Most people have no real clue what an assualt weapon is. Partly because we all see assualt weapons differently. I can assualt someone with a 22 single shot. Its also a lot more accurate and precise than many weapons currently banned. Eventually a 22 long rifle will be seen as a sniper weapon by the gun-haters and they will be trying to ban that too.
M: Yup they are out to get my Little Timmy's Peashooter too.
Some of the gun nuts can get quite hysterical.
M: While it would be right for me to call you wrong to call him wrong it would only be right if I gave a reason and that reason is that just saying somebody is wrong does not make them wrong. You have to make an argument. Mine is that you did not.
Thats the bogus argument that people have been using for years to take away guns slowly and surely.
M: What, you mean guns have disappeared and nobody now has any? Geez
Most people have no real clue what an assualt weapon is. Partly because we all see assualt weapons differently. I can assualt someone with a 22 single shot. Its also a lot more accurate and precise than many weapons currently banned. Eventually a 22 long rifle will be seen as a sniper weapon by the gun-haters and they will be trying to ban that too.
M: Yup they are out to get my Little Timmy's Peashooter too.
Some of the gun nuts can get quite hysterical.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I see little difference between a gun and a car when either is misused.. I can't really think of how to legislate so that only prudent and proper folks can own either.. so I won't.. I say and believe in the ability for citizens to own guns of any type well.. with some exceptions.. Fully auto guns should not be made or sold but to the military and police..
Felons and drunks should not be permitted to own guns or drive cars..
Both should scan the DNA of the owner and not function if the user is not the owner...
Deer and Mooses should be issued flak jackets.. and anti human cannons.. Fish should be educated well in their schools and Terroists should be made to register with the FBI.. so we can do away with the Patriot Act... What a name that is ... Patriot Act..
Felons and drunks should not be permitted to own guns or drive cars..
Both should scan the DNA of the owner and not function if the user is not the owner...
Deer and Mooses should be issued flak jackets.. and anti human cannons.. Fish should be educated well in their schools and Terroists should be made to register with the FBI.. so we can do away with the Patriot Act... What a name that is ... Patriot Act..
bingo - dems would get run out of office, if not the country, if they displayed their true feelings regarding the second amendment.
The only law we need, is one that severely punishes somebody for inflicting serious harm.
Why should we ban assault and automatic weapons just because people think we don't need them? There are enthusiasts and collectors out there. Let them have their hobby and mind your own business.
Why should we ban assault and automatic weapons just because people think we don't need them? There are enthusiasts and collectors out there. Let them have their hobby and mind your own business.
Maybe it's short-sighted for the comparison, but for the individuals that say firearms are okay but certain classes of firearms aren't justified or realistic, I wonder where you would draw the line with that logic??? Based on that reasoning, all vehicles should be governed so that they can't exceed the legal speed limit. SUV's and related vehicles should be restricted to individuals that have taken the appropriate certified training for operation and can show a legitimate need to own and operate a SUV.
Whether it's justified or not, most gun owners dislike the idea of registering their firearms due to the fact that they do not trust the government and believe that the government will one day try to forcibly collect all firearms, regardless of the firearm type.
Gun Control Laws
In 1929, the **Soviet Union** established gun control.
From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, **Turkey** established gun control. From 1915
to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and
exterminated.
**Germany** established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a
total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves
were rounded up and exterminated.
**China** established gun control in 1935. From 1948
to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and
exterminated.
**Guatemala** established gun control in 1964. From
1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and
exterminated.
**Uganda** established gun control in 1970. From 1971
to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
**Cambodia** established gun control in 1956. From
1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
**Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in
the 20th Century
because of gun control: ****56 million**** .**
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
**Australia** were forced
by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to
be destroyed by
their own government, a program costing Australia
taxpayers more than
$500 million dollars. The first year results are now
in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent)!
* In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
firearms are now up
300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding
citizens turned them
in, the criminals did not, and criminals still
possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed
drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed
that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins
and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and
expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of
guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts
above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news
or hear our
president, governors or other politicians
disseminating this information.
**With guns, we are 'citizens'. **
**Without them, we are 'subjects'.**
Whether it's justified or not, most gun owners dislike the idea of registering their firearms due to the fact that they do not trust the government and believe that the government will one day try to forcibly collect all firearms, regardless of the firearm type.
Gun Control Laws
In 1929, the **Soviet Union** established gun control.
From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, **Turkey** established gun control. From 1915
to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and
exterminated.
**Germany** established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a
total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to
defend themselves
were rounded up and exterminated.
**China** established gun control in 1935. From 1948
to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and
exterminated.
**Guatemala** established gun control in 1964. From
1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and
exterminated.
**Uganda** established gun control in 1970. From 1971
to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
**Cambodia** established gun control in 1956. From
1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
**Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in
the 20th Century
because of gun control: ****56 million**** .**
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
**Australia** were forced
by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to
be destroyed by
their own government, a program costing Australia
taxpayers more than
$500 million dollars. The first year results are now
in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent)!
* In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
firearms are now up
300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding
citizens turned them
in, the criminals did not, and criminals still
possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed
drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed
that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins
and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and
expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of
guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts
above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news
or hear our
president, governors or other politicians
disseminating this information.
**With guns, we are 'citizens'. **
**Without them, we are 'subjects'.**
That is exactly why the clause was put into the constitution IMO. They wanted to make sure that if the government ever became tyrannical that the people could rise up and revolt.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,770
- 46,582
- 136
Ok, time for a little education since this is yet another area where the media gets it wrong allmost every time.
What is classified by some as an "assault rifle" does not mean it is a machine gun. Full auto weapons are very tightly regulated by the ATF via the National Firearms Act of 1934. All full auto firearms must be registered with the government and the owner issued a tax stamp. The market of legal full auto weapons in the US is very finite (and hence extremely highly priced) since the registration books were closed in 1986 by the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
"Assault rifles" that are available to the public are ususally of military origin in design but do not incorperate burst or full auto fire as their counterparts do. The only difference between them and any other semi-auto civillian firearm is really only their ability to accept high capacity mags. Most assault weapon bans focus on the asthetic features of the weapon: folding stock, synthetic furniture, bayonet mount (seriously), grip, or name. For example, I own what is really a semi-auto AK47 though they had to rename it to a SAR-1 to get around the ban. The weapon is mechanically no different than one that would have been available before the ban.
Also, stay away from the strawmen in your arguments. Given the number of existing firearms in the US a manditory registration would simply never net anything close to the bulk of them without scrapping the 4th Amendment and sending the military house to house. Nor do I think it is a good idea to begin with for the government to have a comprehensive list of all firarms owners. Even then a huge amount of weapons would certainly end up cached by private citizens. More illegal firearms would simply pour over the border to further supply the criminal world.
All that said, I am not against reasonable firearms laws. Waiting periods (unless you can prove an immediate threat or have a CCW/FFL license) and background checks are sensible precautions.
Why are gun owners so opposed to registration? Your car is registered and has a license plate identifying you on the back, where is your outrage over that?
I can have cars and not register them if they are persay parts cars, which a lot of firearms are. The penalty for not registering my car is a fine, for not registering my firearm its prison!
By identifying myself as a firearms owner the police can search my residence anytime they so choose without a warrant owning a firearm is enough justification to come in.
Why as a law abiding citizen am I subjected to this when other citizens are not?
Also, as a firearms owner I face a jail term if I don't inform the registry of a change of address, even convicted pedofiles aren't treated this way?
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930?s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.
Culturally we have always been different than the States so comparisons are invalid, if you look at homocide not including firearms we are way lower on avg than the States as well. If you look at cost benefit of all the money spent on ineffective registering we could do much better in crime and punishment if money was properly directed.
In 2000, 3% of all violent crime incidents were committed 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.
There weren't a lot of handguns in Canada to start with, considering how low actual firearms are used in any crime incident we are about as effecient as we can be in their regulation and control. There are 15 million long guns in Canada 15X the number of handguns but used 1/4 of the time for homocides, why are we bothering to register them when the example of handguns had led to such poor result?
There is massive non-compliance with registration so $ for value is very poor.
Solving real crime and problems are solved with uniforms on the streets not useless paper exercises.
"Last week, too, the Library of Parliament completed an analysis of murders in Canada between 1997 and 2004, roughly the first seven years under the current Firearms Act enacted by the Liberals a decade ago. There were 4,534 homicides committed in Canada during that period. Of all the persons accused in those killings, just 124 were holders of a valid firearms licence at the time of their indictments, and just 95 of those murders (2.1%) were committed with registered long guns. "
I can have cars and not register them if they are persay parts cars, which a lot of firearms are. The penalty for not registering my car is a fine, for not registering my firearm its prison!
By identifying myself as a firearms owner the police can search my residence anytime they so choose without a warrant owning a firearm is enough justification to come in.
Why as a law abiding citizen am I subjected to this when other citizens are not?
Also, as a firearms owner I face a jail term if I don't inform the registry of a change of address, even convicted pedofiles aren't treated this way?
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930?s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.
Culturally we have always been different than the States so comparisons are invalid, if you look at homocide not including firearms we are way lower on avg than the States as well. If you look at cost benefit of all the money spent on ineffective registering we could do much better in crime and punishment if money was properly directed.
In 2000, 3% of all violent crime incidents were committed 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.
There weren't a lot of handguns in Canada to start with, considering how low actual firearms are used in any crime incident we are about as effecient as we can be in their regulation and control. There are 15 million long guns in Canada 15X the number of handguns but used 1/4 of the time for homocides, why are we bothering to register them when the example of handguns had led to such poor result?
There is massive non-compliance with registration so $ for value is very poor.
Solving real crime and problems are solved with uniforms on the streets not useless paper exercises.
"Last week, too, the Library of Parliament completed an analysis of murders in Canada between 1997 and 2004, roughly the first seven years under the current Firearms Act enacted by the Liberals a decade ago. There were 4,534 homicides committed in Canada during that period. Of all the persons accused in those killings, just 124 were holders of a valid firearms licence at the time of their indictments, and just 95 of those murders (2.1%) were committed with registered long guns. "
Most gun violence takes place in cities among the urban poor, the same places that vote democratic, so the Republican party has figured out another meaningless wedge issue to get out their 'stupid bumpkin vote'. Guns are killing the democrats in their homes in the city as they sleep and they are going to take them away. It's mostly black criminals that die or their victims who are also black but they want to take your dove shotgun. Vote republican and we will preserve your hunting way of life.
It's just another example of what makes Republicans the party of character that stands up for the right of the city poor to be shot because it's part of out traditional freedoms. Remember though, it's not part of your freedom not to be listened to on the telephone or shipped to a foreign jail to be tortured because 9/11 changed everything. Modernity changed nothing either, right.
It's just another example of what makes Republicans the party of character that stands up for the right of the city poor to be shot because it's part of out traditional freedoms. Remember though, it's not part of your freedom not to be listened to on the telephone or shipped to a foreign jail to be tortured because 9/11 changed everything. Modernity changed nothing either, right.
I think that is unfair. Many of my friends are Republicans but I don't think any of them would characterize getting shot as a "right" 
Originally posted by: Pandaren
I think that is unfair. Many of my friends are Republicans but I don't think any of them would characterize getting shot as a "right"
Of course not. You speak of people of character. They stand up for the right of self defense for themselves when it means death to others because times have changed and their understanding has not. Very few people are evil by intent. It is always evil in the name of good.
The difference is-guns are designed to kill, and only to kill. The automobile is designed to transport people and goods, and (usually) only kills accidently.
And yet we require licensing, registration and insurance to operate the automobile.
Maybe we should require all gun owners to be licensed and insured, so that if they accidently shoot someone, the medical bills and such are covered, thus paying for the billions in medical care necessitated by gun violence.
Great idea, by the way, to ban Felons and drunks from owning guns or drive cars.
Are you saying that the citizens of the USSR or Germany could have resisted the military of these countries, but for the fact that their guns were taken away caused them to be murdered?
Complete BS.
Look how the branch davidians did against our govt, and they had assault rifles.
I don't trust the govt either, but I trust it more than I do the gun fanatics.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms ? even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.
Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback. But beyond that, most of the statistics offered here are misleading and present only "first year results" where long-term trends need to be considered in order to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions.
For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.) An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program. (The chart found at this link also demonstrates how easily statistics based on small sample sizes can mislead, as when the homicide rate in Tasmania increased nearly eight-fold in one year based on a single incident in which 35 people were killed
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi003.html
In 2000 the Northern Territory recorded its lowest homicide victimisation rate (3.06 per 100,000 people) since 1989. A Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice paper, "Homicide in Australia 1999?2000" provides a statistical snapshot of police recorded homicides in the last year, as well as information on trends over the last 11 years and jurisdictional comparisons. Trends show that the homicide rate for Australia has stayed remarkably constant. The highest rate recorded over the last 11 years was 2 per 100,000 and the lowest rate was 1.7 per 100,000. These data come from the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP), which was established by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1990 and has recorded every case of homicide in Australia since 1989.
Also note that the homicide rate for the U.S. is 5.64 per 100,000 population and that for Australia it is 1.81 per 100,000, or to put it another way, the homicide rate is 68% lower in Australia.http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Guns are designed to facilitate placing of some kind of item within reasonable proximity of where the 'operator' desires. Cars are similar in that regard. And both have the energy to produce death to a living entity.
Either in the hands of bad guys usually ends up in a situation that society deems unwanted and preventable.
Society is wrong.. it is not preventable so long as there are both bad guys and cars or guns.
Laws don't do a thing to stop the 'heartless' bad guy hell bent on misusing either.
heheheh Insurance.. how many auto owners have insurance in say... California and how many don't .. it is the law to insure autos in California..
The only real solution might be to send all bad guys on a one way trip to Montana and build a big fence around it. That pre- supposes the fact that auto accidents and on-purposes-es along with criminal use of guns will happen and accept that as a consequence of Freedom.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter